Should the Indy 500 Be Shut Down? Is Auto Racing Disrespectful of Human Life? [Repost from 2016]

Race Car in Pits File Photo

[reposted from 2016]

According to AP, there have been 66 deaths in connection with the Indy 500 site since 1909, including 40 drivers, 14 mechanics, nine spectators and a little boy playing in his own yard nearby. Additional deaths, of course, have occurred in other venues. The deaths have continued up to the current era, and have involved some of the most elite drivers, as has also occurred with stock car racing.

At a time when we need to be encouraging respect for human life and the development of a stronger conscience with regard for human life and the dignity of the human person, in the face of assaults upon respect for human life, it probably is a good idea to ban auto racing. Some first steps could include holding organizers financially responsible for any deaths or injuries, on a strict basis, with multiplying financial penalties added, without regard for supposed assumption of risk by spectators or participants.



Sentimentality and would-be tradition, especially in a sleepy setting like Indiana, not necessarily steeped in many other traditions, should not be an obstacle to changes. I myself like hearkening back to some old family connections with the race, which were nice in the themselves, yet that does not balance out with more important considerations and proactive steps to move forward.

I have mixed feelings about the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500. My paternal grandfather, God Rest His Soul, built at least one race car that ran in the Indy 500, back in the late 1920’s or early 1930’s. My father had early childhood memories of Eddie Rickenbacker coming to the house, the great World War I flying ace who developed a passion for auto racing and, at one time, owned the Indy 500. The family connection with racing would be interrupted when my grandfather passed on prematurely, in his late thirties, apparently from health-related reasons, when my father was only eight years old. Years later, a brother-in-law became CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and briefly had his company sponsor a car, from a racing team led by a racing legend.

While human life in any era is sacred and precious, there is, perhaps, a temptation to think that the deaths are part of a murky past with less sophisticated technology and lower safety standards, or related to the skill of a driver. The first death at the race was in 1911, in the very first race, when a mechanic was killed.

However, just five years ago, Dan Wheldon distinguished himself as an elite driver by winning the Indy 500 for the second time, only to get killed in a crash the same year at another track.

Interestingly enough, my father, God Rest His Soul, never seemed to take people to the race, in my memory, although he and my mother did take me to qualifications once. (Ironically, the driver we saw on foot, standing near our bleachers, by coincidence was the racing legend who later had his team sponsored by the brother-in-law.)

But before I was born, my father did take some older siblings to the race itself, and there was a huge accident involving a large number of cars. Footage from the accident would actually be used in a feature film about the Indy 500. Real-world footage of the accident and its aftermath was embedded within the dramatized action of the film. As I watched that movie, as a rerun on a television, one of the older siblings came into the room, saw the accident, and said that he recognized it, as an accident that had occurred at the race he was taken to, years earlier, by my father. He remembered the iconic moment when, amidst the chaos, a wheel snapped loose and came rolling out of the chaos, continuing down the track at high-speed by itself, with no car attached.



Years later, my father and mother did attend at least one race when the brother-in-law’s company sponsored a racing team.

But, during that long hiatus, perhaps my father was quietly dissuaded from going to more races, after taking what were then small children to a race, only to witness a massive multi-car accident. More so than witnessing an accident, there also is the danger of spectators getting killed. In the modern era, in one instance, a wheel that broke off in an accident hurtled upwards and into the stands, killing a spectator completely at random, halfway up the stands.

It is unquestionably disrespectful to human life, and therefore un-Godly and un-American, to subject human beings to those dangers for something as trivial as a quasi-sporting event.

Arguments about technological benefits are unpersuasive. Technological innovations can be tested in other ways, in other settings, without the same issues arising in the same way. The competitive profit motive of auto racing and the purse might help instigate innovation, but that does not justify the loss of human life.

Actual testing tracks do not have to be built along the lines of the Indy 500. Indeed, the Indy 500 track, which originally was brick, and has corners reportedly banked for cars going less than 100 mph, is not necessarily suitable for modern test track purposes.



And it is not clear that we even need to use human drivers, in a cockpit, for modern testing of vehicles. It would be possible in today’s era to test vehicles, on remote testing tracks, with no actual driver behind the wheel, or with a driver who pilots the car remotely. The point is not that there should be races run that way. The point is, that if one argument for auto racing is that it could induce technological innovation, the response is that there are other ways to conduct the testing that are safer for humans.

An additional concern is the moral impact on moral conscience, from watering down the conscience by risking, or ending, human life for frivolous reasons.

One of the biggest challenges to human society in the current era, as always, has been to inspire the development of a stronger conscience in favor of respecting human life.

Terrorism; other forms of war; widespread prenatal child-killing (cast by its aficionados as the pseudo-clinical euphemism “abortion”); euthanasia; health care rationing; human trafficking; drug trafficking; permissiveness and sexual degradation; and other threats to human life and human dignity compound their initial impact by also besieging and undermining moral conscience.

We need a push to build a stronger moral conscience, in defense of human life, not efforts to weaken or water down human conscience. We do not need the would-be excitement, sentimentality, false rationalizations, or mere habit-building, associated with something like auto racing, to whittle away at the proper formation of proper conscience.

One argument sometimes raised, to promote quietism in the face of the threats auto racing poses to human life, is a generic, abstract idea of simply pushing the limits of something, of going higher and faster, and so forth.

The problem is, that argument rests on the notion that limits do exist in the first place.

The issue becomes, what limits are appropriate, and what limits can be pushed.



For example, football is now realizing that head-on-head contact is a limit that has to be ratcheted back, with a firm line drawn in the sand, because of the reality of head injuries and their ripple effects.

With some kinds of risks, there is no need to push limits, because the limits are appropriate.

For example, a few individuals have parachuted from an altitude so high, that it felt like they were in outer space. In broad daylight, they rose by balloon to an altitude so immense that the blue sky disappeared, and the black sky and stars came out. The first time that happened, the parachutist got to a point where he temporarily blacked out, and had to rely on the chute opening automatically.

The depths of the ocean are so bone-crushing with their water pressure that no human could survive without a heavy diving structure. Yet it would be foolish to deliberately push the limits of depth for scuba-divers, to the edge of where they could be killed. It would be frivolous to sell tickets to which whether somebody got killed scuba-diving, when they deliberately tried to go too deep.

Or, where limits exist, there might be other ways to push the limits, or to focus on pushing entirely different limits. For example, in football, there are other ways to deliver hits without causing concussions.

One concern should be whether, in some childish, emotionalistic way, anybody would think that the seriousness of deaths and injuries in auto racing somehow translates into seriousness of purpose, or makes the race more “important.” The opposite is true. The seriousness of deaths and injuries in the sport highlight how frivolous the activity is, when compared with the sacredness of human life and the seriousness of the deaths.

Even worse would be if there is a small subset of the population that actually ever got a sick thrill from seeing accidents and the possibility of death. In the Confessions of Saint Augustine, he describes a friend who apparently was addicted to visiting the “arena” as a spectator, which presumably meant gladiator fights or worse. The friend apparently was an otherwise normal person, perhaps even aspiring to being a Christian like Saint Augustine. The friend also knew that visiting the arena was something he should avoid.

Yet he found aspects of it addictive.

With regard to auto racing, one step that could be taken would be to make the organizers legally and financially responsible, under strict liability, for any deaths or injuries to spectators. One could try to argue that there is some assumption of risk by the victims. Yet that is not a risk that anyone should be allowed to assume, because no reasonable person could assume such a risk and still be considered reasonable. That is, no one in his right mind would think that sitting and eating a hot dog while a vehicle goes by at high speed is important enough to justify getting killed.

In the instance of the spectator in the late 1980’s killed randomly by a flying wheel, the widow reportedly sued for $9 million, then reached a confidential settlement.

Given financial responsibility and financial incentives, organizers would be in the best position to adopt better safeguards.

Another issue that might come up is whether some tracks or some circumstances are safer or more dangerous than others. There has been a driving death at the Indy 500 track as recently as the 1990’s, however.

On the other hand, if other tracks and other races are more likely to have deaths now, and if shutting down tracks one-by-one, from this point forward, is the way towards a gradual step-by-step ban, so be it.



For the Indy 500 itself, one added twist is the race’s spot on the calendar on Memorial Day weekend. Memorial Day, of course, has a focus on remembering and honoring our departed, including those who perished in military service defending the nation. Indeed, the Indy 500 features taps as part of its ceremonies, as well as an invocation by a religious figure. At a time when we remember the departed, and acknowledge those who made the ultimate sacrifice, the natural reaction should be to have a heightened respect for human life, and a heightened sensitivity to the realities, and loss, associated with death. Sensitivities to these values should be raised, not lowered. To do otherwise would be un-Godly and un-American.

First time buyer SPECIAL - Free Shipping + Free Gifts



SCW NEWSWATCH: “When she decided not to abort twins, the #abortion facility locked her inside” – LiveAction/ Sarah Terzo

Baby Sleeping on Mother's Stomach, adapted from image at cdc.gov

Live Action reports on a woman with twins who, it was said, encountered various tactics impeding her choice to leave an abortion clinic without terminating her preborn children.

“Sidewalk Advocates for Life shared a video telling the recent story of a woman pregnant with twins who changed her mind about having an abortion. When the woman tried to leave the abortion facility, workers there refused to unlock the doors and let her go. … Even if the abortion [clinic] ‘counselor’ did in fact lie to try and convince the mother to abort her set of healthy twins, the abortion was thwarted, and the twins were allowed to live. … [T]he sidewalk counselor was pivotal in saving the lives of these children. The pregnant woman later told Laura that had she not been there, she would probably have gone back to the facility and aborted her babies eventually. But the pregnancy resource center was there to help her, and she was given the resources she needed to choose life.”



Live Action additionally reports on what apparently was a diversity of anti-abortion activity outside the abortuary, such that, while a helpful, supportive sidewalk counselor aided the mother, different parties presented angry protests that caused unhelpful distraction.

“There is one more important point to be taken from this story. Along with the sidewalk counselor outside the facility that day, there were a number of anti-abortion protesters who were yelling at the woman going in. Even before finding out she was carrying twins, the pregnant woman was feeling ambivalent about having her abortion. She had wanted to stop and talk to someone outside the clinic and looked for a friendly face. But the people yelling at her were so hostile that she was afraid to stop. She didn’t feel she could trust the people outside the clinic, so she hurried inside instead. If the angry, yelling people had not been there, this woman may have never even entered the facility. …”

Click here for: “When she decided not to abort twins, the abortion facility locked her inside” – LiveAction/ Sarah Terzo

[featured image is file photo from another occasion]





 

SCW NEWSWATCH: “UN Intervened to Change New York Abortion Law” – The Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam)/ Austin Ruse

The Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) reports on attempts by a UN-connected personage from Rutgers University and the University of Toronto who sought to promote New York’s recent adoption of a radically extreme abortion law permitting prenatal infanticide up to the moment of delivery.

“… the United Nations, at least a part of it, was involved in the controversial New York State law that codified the U.S. Supreme Court decisions imposing abortion on demand up to birth. Melissa Upreti … ‘special mandate holder’ connected to the UN Human Rights Council, testified … before the New York City Council Committee on Women in which she told councilmen that international law requires abortion on demand until birth. … The New York law was passed by the State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo. Similar laws have been proposed in other states. It is likely UN bodies are intervening there, too.”

Click here for: “UN Intervened to Change New York Abortion Law” – The Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam)/ Austin Ruse



Additional Links:



 

If You Are Prolife, You Need to Oppose the Kavanaugh Nomination

File Photo of Portion of U.S. Capitol Dome and U.S. Flag, adopted from .gov image by Steven C. Welsh

Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was one of the architects of Abortionism as the deciding vote and co-author of the 1992 Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey decision that modified Roe v. Wade yet carried forward the decriminalization of abortion.

Yet, within a year, current Donald Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh signed on as a law clerk for Anthony Kennedy. Rather than repudiate that decision and apologize, during his nomination process, Kavanaugh instead has ratified and updated his association with Kennedy by calling Kennedy a champion of liberty, saying Kennedy has left a legacy of liberty.



So Kavanaugh clerked for a pro-abortion Justice who was the deciding vote keeping abortion going, and now promotes the pro-abortion Justice as a “champion of liberty.”

If you are prolife, you need to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination. And, if you do not, it calls into question whether you were ever pro-life to begin with.

Kavanaugh additionally allowed pro-abortion Condolleeza Rice to help introduce him before the Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh’s association with powerful, celebrity pro-abortion figures implies a shocking lack of moral conscience and poor judgment.

Abortion is the biggest human rights violation of our time, and he has associated himself with it by his actions and his remarks.



Human life, and the right of the innocent not to be killed, is the most fundamental of liberties, making abortion one of the biggest enemies of liberty. Protection of innocent human life also is one of the foundations of legitimate government, one of the excuses government has for existing in the first place. Yet Kavanaugh has associated himself with enemies of the right to life and persons who thereby have set themselves against the defense of American lives.

Working for a pro-abortion judge, alone, is enough to make Kavanaugh unfit. Yet calling a pro-abortion judge a champion of liberty means that Kavanaugh is a person who stands liberty upside-down and someone whose analytical intellect is either wholly unfit or twisted by self-serving dishonesty.

One can only speculate as to Kavanaugh’s motives, then and now.

Yet one of the biggest problems with abortion today is the risk that something horrific and unthinkable, the deliberate taking of defenseless human life, has become “business as usual” or routine. Kavanaugh’s casual attitude towards saluting Kennedy contributes to a climate of human life being regarded as cheap and expendable.

Kavanaugh’s flippant, oblivious attitude stands in the way of the necessary readjustment of public attitudes about this widespread human rights violation.

As such, Kavanaugh might even be responsible for deaths already. Women in difficult situations, pressured into confused acquiescence with the killing of their child, might back their way into because some segments of society wish to blur over the nature of the situation. Kavanaugh has added to the blur.

Given his origins as a local Washingtonian child of privilege, we have no idea to what extent Kavanaugh is a self-serving social climber who decided to “go along to get along.” We know that, amidst accusations of drunken, underaged, psychopathic, criminal behavior, Kavanaugh, in a sometimes emotionalistic set of responses, blurted out defensive remarks about his high school class rank — as if that piece of data had any relevance whatsoever to the charges.

Now, Kavanaugh did not even go to the best school for boys in the Washington area. That would be Saint Anselm’s Abbey Academy, traditionally one of the top-10 schools in America for SAT scores. Kavanaugh went to a different school that presumably is respectable academically, yet is more of a posh, country-club-like school. Yet if, all these years later, as a would-be grown-up, aKvanaugh still gets excited about his class rank, to the point that he apparently thinks it helps deflect accusations of criminality, just how important was it to him to climb the social ladder, such as with Yale, plumb judicial clerkships and so forth.

Kavanugh is somebody who was made a partner at Kirkland & Ellis less than a decade out of law school, with no law firm experience, based solely on his judicial clerkships, a brief stint with the Solicitor General and his work for Special Prosecutor Ken Starr.

Did Kavanaugh really not care about the mass murder of innocent American babies in the womb, if being oblivious to that horror meant fluffing his resume with a Supreme Court clerkship, instead of rejecting involvement with a human rights violator?

Is his desire to fluff his credentials now so great, that he wants to continue gliding along in the giddy heights of legal profession and Washingtonian elites, by fantasizing that the clerkship was something impressive, with a champion of liberty, rather than a black mark on his record that should bar him from his own judicial appointment?

In any event, his current posture makes him morally and intellectually unfit for judicial office.

If you, yourself, want to be known as prolife, you cannot support him. If you do support him, you are making it “open season” to expose yourself as not being prolife.

And that goes for the big-money anti-abortion groups that have decided to endorse Kavanaugh personally instead of simply addressing the broader issue. With roughly 60 million surgical abortions in the United States and counting, it would be silly to refer to anything like a “pro-lif establishment.” Yet, to the extent that some big-money nonprofits have tainted themselves by endorsing a troubled nominee like Kavanaugh, they also have exposed themselves as not being a good source of insight or leadership, as not being authentically prolife; and as not being an appropriation destination for financial gifts.

Again, if you, yourself, want to be known as prolife, you cannot support Kavanaugh. If you do support him, you are exposing yourself as not being prolife.





Brett Kavanaugh’s Association with Pro-Abortion Anthony Kennedy Renders Him Unsuitable for the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Facade with Parkland and Blossoming Trees, adapted from image at supremecourt.gov

Brett Kavanaugh’s association with, and ongoing endorsement of, pro-abortion former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as a champion of “liberty,” reveals Kavanaugh’s lack of moral compass and judicial and intellectual incompetence.  As such, any loyal American and any person with respect for human life should oppose his confirmation to the Supreme Court and call for his removal from the judiciary.

The biggest threat to American lives, for four decades, has been so-called “abortion,” the deliberate taking of human life in a mother’s womb. Sixty million surgical abortions alone since the Roe v. Wade decision blocked prosecutions for abortion make it a bigger killer of Americans than all wars combined.  On average, abortion is nearly like having 9/11 occur every single day.



In 1992, abortion was kept decriminalized by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, with Anthony Kennedy serving as the deciding vote and co-author of the main opinion.

Yet, despite Kavanaugh’s supposed affiliation with the Catholic Faith, and despite his supposedly elite education, Kavanaugh was willing to serve as a law clerk for Anthony Kennedy within a year of Kennedy’s human rights violation as a perpetrator of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

If Kavanaugh had repudiated his past association with Kennedy, and attributed it immaturity, or a lack of awareness of the horrific scope and nature of abortion within less than two decades of Roe v. Wade, there still would be cause to reject his nomination.

Yet, right up until the present, and throughout his nomination process,  Kavanaugh has aggravated his wrongdoing, updated his association with Kennedy, and made it even more egregious by referencing Anthony Kennedy as having a legacy of liberty or being a champion of liberty.

That places Kavanaugh in the position of praising and admiring one of the architects of some of the most massive and atrocious human rights violations in human history.



Additionally, the scope of abortion as, literally, a direct threat and attack on the American population, calls for charges of de facto treason, and calls into question Kavanaugh’s patriotism and loyalty to the United States.

These facts alone would require a rejection of his nomination.

Defense of human life is the cornerstone of a national government’s right to exist, its justification for being a government.

Yet to associate an architect of decriminalized abortion with liberty, a cornerstone value of the American Republic, not only reveals Kavanaugh as an anti-American hypocrite, it calls into question his competency to engage in rational thought and honest intellectual analysis, and therefore calls into question his capacity to serve on the bench.

The most fundamental liberty, and first liberty interest mentioned in the nation’s founding Declaration of Independence, is the right to live and not be killed.

Abortion, the deliberate taking of defenseless human life, is the opposite of liberty.



Indeed, it is the defenselessness of the targeted victim that helps defines abortion. If a child in the womb had the capacity to defend herself, there would be no abortion.

Moreover, abortion’s scope is not only an existential threat to America, it is an existential threat to American democracy and the legitimacy of the American government.  It is not simply the the case that government justifies its existence on its ability to defend human life, but embraces the taking of human life on a massive scale.

Decriminalized surgical Abortion has killed roughly the same number of persons necessary to get elected to the Presidency.  One of the major political parties is in a position where it cannot form a legitimate government, because roughly as many Americans have been killed, in their mothers’ wombs, as the number of votes that party gets in presidential elections.  It would be like Hitler murdering 6 million Jews, getting 6 million votes from Nazis, and claiming that he was duly elected by the nation as a whole.

And, in addition to some Republicans being pro-abortion themselves, lukewarm Republicans mouthing anti-abortion positions but tepidly failing to take action to remedy the situation, call into question their own weak leadership and legitimacy.

Yet, on the level of intellect and rational analysis, Kavanaugh’s lauding of the person most responsible for decriminalized abortion as a champion of “liberty” is not simply treasonous.

It is, to put it simply, stupid.

Since getting killed is the opposite of liberty, Kavanaugh lauding an architect of the mass-killing of innocent American lives makes Kavanaugh sound like a manipulative liar and an intellectually stunted buffoon.



Additionally troubling is the context of Kavanaugh as a Washingtonian child of privilege, raising the prospect of him “going along to get along,” putting status and prestige, and resume-filling, ahead of right and wrong and ahead of loyalty to the nation.  His continued malfeasance in praising Kennedy raises the prospect of Kavanaugh of putting the desire to be “in with the in-crowd,” whether in Washington or in the troubled would-be “legal” profession ahead of moral and intellectual sanity, and ahead of the duty to protect American lives.

Any loyal American should oppose the Kavanaugh nomination.

Any person wanting to respect human life should oppose the Kavanaugh nomination.

Andy would-be “anti-abortion” group or individual, or would-be “conservative” group or individual that endorses Kavanaugh should be dismissed as contrary to their supposed mission; should be denied donations or honors; and should be rejected as a would-be voice for pro-life or traditional values.

Any legislator promoting the Kavanaugh nomination should be rejected and voted out.  If such a person has been posing as pro-life or traditional values or conservative, that might help explain why decriminalized abortion has malingered on for four decades — because someone flying a “false flag” took up space in the body politic that should have gone to someone who actually holds those values.

Of course, another reason that decriminalized abortion has malingered on has been Congress going AWOL, committing dereliction of duty and drawing their salary under false pretenses, by failing to carry out their Constitutional duty to impeach and remove renegade judges — renegade judges and justices committing crimes against the Constitution and associating with the treasonous mass-killings of Americans in their mother’s wombs.



The Constitution provides measures for its own amending.  A renegade judge or justice amending the Constitution in violation of that provision — such as by judicial fiat, by a vote of less than ten politically lawyers serving as justices — has committed an illegal act.

A renegade judge doing so, with the foreseeable and known result of the mass-murder of Americans, should be regarded as treasonous.

The Constitution does not have a gap allowing such a thing to happen; the Founding Fathers did not have a lack of foresight to fail to provide for such a contingency.  The Constitution provides for the removal of judges, by action of Congress.  Failure to carry out that Constitutional duty makes the weak, derelict legislators accessories by omission.

If we see that the same people pushing the Kavanaugh nomination also have failed to carry out their Constitutional duties of office, if we see that they have failed to take steps to remove renegade judges, then their involvement with Kavanaugh provides a useful filter calling for their exposure and removal —  a fresh reminder that they need to be rejected as failed leaders and removed from office, and replaced with actual leaders who will do their jobs and be loyal to America.



Of course, an added factor is that President Donald Trump also has praised Anthony Kennedy.

As long as Trump remains in office, it is up to Americans to send the nomination back to Trump, and tell him to “get it right’ this time by rejecting Anthony Kennedy’s anti-American legacy and nominating a proper nominee instead of Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, Trump has added further disgrace by appointing a pro-abortion Republican, Rudolph Giuliani, to a key White House post.

If there is an effort to “Dump Trump,” these embarrassing missteps should prompt such a movement now, while there is still time before the next Presidential election.

A Republican failure to do so would further expose, as fraudulent “cocktail conservatives,” any Republicans who additionally demonstrate a disrespect for the nation by attempting to push forward the troubled Kavanaugh nomination.





U.S. Capitol file photo

Brett Kavanaugh, Trump Supreme Court Nominee, Clerked for Pro-Abortion Anthony Kennedy, Year After Kennedy Cast Deciding Pro-Abortion Vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Supreme Court Facade with Parkland and Blossoming Trees, adapted from image at supremecourt.gov

For the second time in a row, President Donald Trump has nominated to the Supreme Court someone who chose to clerk for pro-abortion Justice Anthony Kennedy not long after Kennedy cast the deciding vote to keep abortion decriminalized, despite abortion being the biggest threat to American lives and one of the most grotesque human rights violations of this era.



Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which modified yet, nevertheless, reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, was argued April 22, 1992 and decided on June 29, 1992.

Trump’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, signed on to be a law clerk for Kennedy for the October term of 1993, according to Kavanaugh’s public biography on the D.C. Court of Appeals web site.

By comparison, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is listed as having clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy in 1993 and 1994.  (Gorsuch’s path was a bit more circuitous.  He was hired as a kind of retirement benefit for a newly retired Justice White, similar to former presidents being provided a secretary.  While on the scene, he benefited from the opportunity for such “clerks” to also be added to the work done for actual, active Justices.)



The willingness to clerk for a pro-abortion jurist, especially so soon after Kennedy cast the deciding vote to keep abortion alive as judicial precedent, would ordinarily call into question the moral compass of a legal professional; his commitment or lack thereof to respect for human life; or his willingness to sacrifice moral principles for the sake of wealth, status and advancement.

Many questions remain — is Kavanaugh himself pro-abortion; does he simply not care that much about the matter; is he willing to “go along to get along” to gain wealth and status.  He later became a partner at the prominent Kirkland and Ellis law firm with little or no apparent law practice experience, with his main resume points being the Supreme Court clerkship and several years of assisting Ken Starr’s special prosecutor activities.



Any temptation to seek to minimize the significance of Kavanaugh’s actions because of the passage of time or his comparatively younger age would have to ignore the fact that he already was a grown man a few years out of law school, with other judicial clerkship experience already behind him.

Yet most glaring is his willingness, like Gorsuch, to ratify and make current his moral failing by saluting Anthony Kennedy in his remarks at the White House during the announcement of his own nomination to the Supreme Court.

With that action, his moral apathy and lack of a properly formed moral conscience was not simply part of a career stepping stone in his twenties.  It was updated to become part of his reality today.

Given the mind-boggling, and therefore treasonous scope of so-called abortion, apparently nearing 60 million Americans dead in their mother’s wombs from surgical abortions alone since Roe v. Wade, the logical response should be to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination and begin the process of replacing Trump.

Trump still has time to reverse course and find a more appropriate nominee.  Yet there is little indication that he would do so, especially considering his insistence of repeating his praise of his own mistaken choice of Gorsuch.

Even though Trump promised to “drain the swamp” and assist a Culture of Life, two times in a row he has nominated a former Washingtonian insider child of privilege who clerked for the same pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice.  He has done so in a climate of moral quietism that tries to treat the unthinkable horror of abortion as “business as usual” or settled law.

For thinking Americans who care about American lives, right and wrong and a solid national foundation in rule of law, the best choice is to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination and begin the process of replacing Trump with someone more suitable.







Pray for Ireland to Respect Human Life and God’s Law in Abortion Referendum

Ireland Satellite Image adapted from image at nasa.gov

Ireland, on May 25, 2018, votes in a referendum to potentially amend the Irish constitution for potential legislative action relaxing restrictions on abortion.

A “yes” vote would make it easier to allow murder, as long as the victim was not yet born. Prenatal child-killing often is described as so-called “abortion,” to recast what is deliberate killing as a kind of artificial miscarriage.  A number of abortions also are essentially death by torture, carried out against helpless victims who can feel pain.  There are additional issues raised by the harm abortion causes against the physical, mental and spiritual health and well-being of the mother, as well as female babies being targeted for killing at a higher rate than males.



Ireland needs our prayers, that the Irish people will respect human life and respect God by saying “no” to murder, including saying “no” to abortion.  Ultimately those who promote and participate in abortion not only are unbalanced in their thinking and a danger to the potential murder victims.  They also imperil their very souls by involving themselves with an evil that could result in their being condemned to hell, and likely would absent some unusual act of Divine Mercy prompted by some factor calling into question the perpetrator’s capacity.

So-called abortion is the most widespread human rights abuse on earth, and is often a leading cause of death for various groups or in some locales.



As murder, abortion grotesquely violates God’s Law, to the point where procurement of abortion brings automatic excommunication in the Catholic Church, and the Code of Canon Law.

Given that fact, it is curiously perverse that Ireland would be targeted for a referendum on abortion, given that Ireland is so predominantly Catholic, roughly 88% according to the U.S. State Department.

Those promoting abortion in Ireland not only are looking to kill more Irish, they are looking to get more Irish excommunicated in the process, and to implicate as much of the country as possible through the referendum.  Those voting in favor of abortion are, in the process, making themselves co-conspirators to murder and falling into some spectrum of grave sin, barring themselves from receiving Communion.  Any nominal Catholic publicly promoting abortion would be guilty of public scandal, and thereby barred from Communion until they publicly repented.  So, all around, it is if those promoting the abortion change are not only interesting in promoting killing.  In what is likely a diabolical matter, they are interested in corrupting the soul of a nation, and the souls of individuals, driving a wedge between them and God; driving a wedge between them and the Faith and Sacraments; and seeking to send more people to hell.





First time buyer SPECIAL - Free Shipping + Free Gifts

NEWSLINK: “Report: Woman aborts her baby at Planned Parenthood and commits suicide later that day” – Live Action/ Kansas Coalition for Life

Defund Planned Parenthood, Over Scene of Prolife Demonstrators

“Mark Gietzen of the Kansas Coalition for Life has reported via Facebook that a woman who had an abortion at Planned Parenthood in Kansas committed suicide hours after the abortion was completed. The deaths of mother and child took place in late June 2017. This double tragedy serves as a heartbreaking reminder that women who have abortions suffer the emotional effects either moments after or even years after the abortion. …”

Should the Indy 500 Be Shut Down? Is Auto Racing Disrespectful of Human Life?

Race Car in Pits File Photo

[reposted from 2016]

According to AP, there have been 66 deaths in connection with the Indy 500 site since 1909, including 40 drivers, 14 mechanics, nine spectators and a little boy playing in his own yard nearby.  Additional deaths, of course, have occurred in other venues.  The deaths have continued up to the current era, and have involved some of the most elite drivers, as has also occurred with stock car racing.

At a time when we need to be encouraging respect for human life  and the development of a stronger conscience with regard for human life and the dignity of the human person, in the face of assaults upon respect for human life, it probably is a good idea to ban auto racing.  Some first steps could include holding organizers financially responsible for any deaths or injuries, on a strict basis, with multiplying financial penalties added, without regard for supposed assumption of risk by spectators or participants.



Sentimentality and would-be tradition, especially in a sleepy setting like Indiana, not necessarily steeped in many other traditions, should not be an obstacle to changes.  I myself like hearkening back to some old family connections with the race, which were nice in the themselves, yet that does not balance out with more important considerations and  proactive steps to move forward.

I have mixed feelings about the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500.  My paternal grandfather, God Rest His Soul, built at least one race car that ran in the Indy 500, back in the late 1920’s or early 1930’s.  My father had early childhood memories of Eddie Rickenbacker coming to the house, the great World War I flying ace who developed a passion for auto racing and, at one time, owned the Indy 500.  The family connection with racing would be interrupted when my grandfather passed on prematurely, in his late thirties, apparently from health-related reasons, when my father was only eight years old.  Years later, a brother-in-law became CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and briefly had his company sponsor a car, from a racing team led by a racing legend.



While human life in any era is sacred and precious, there is, perhaps, a temptation to think that the deaths are part of a murky past with less sophisticated technology and lower safety standards, or related to the skill of a driver. The first death at the race was in 1911, in the very first race, when a mechanic was killed.

However, just five years ago, Dan Wheldon distinguished himself as an elite driver by winning the Indy 500 for the second time, only to get killed in a crash the same year at another track.

Interestingly enough, my father, God Rest His Soul, never seemed to take people to the race, in my memory, although he and my mother did take me to qualifications once. (Ironically, the driver we saw on foot, standing near our bleachers, by coincidence was the racing legend who later had his team sponsored by the brother-in-law.)

But before I was born, my father did take some older siblings to the race itself, and there was a huge accident involving a large number of cars.  Footage from the accident would actually be used in a feature film about the Indy 500.  Real-world footage of the accident and its aftermath was embedded within the dramatized action of the film.  As I watched that movie, as a rerun on a television, one of the older siblings came into the room, saw the accident, and said that he recognized it, as an accident that had occurred at the race he was taken to, years earlier, by my father.  He remembered the iconic moment when, amidst the chaos, a wheel snapped loose and came rolling out of the chaos, continuing down the track at high-speed by itself, with no car attached.



Years later, my father and mother did attend at least one race when the brother-in-law’s company sponsored a racing team.

But, during that long hiatus, perhaps my father was quietly dissuaded from going to more races, after taking what were then small children to a race, only to witness a massive multi-car accident.  More so than witnessing an accident, there also is the danger of spectators getting killed.  In the modern era, in one instance, a wheel that broke off in an accident hurtled upwards and into the stands, killing a spectator completely at random, halfway up the stands.

It is unquestionably disrespectful to human life, and therefore un-Godly and un-American, to subject human beings to those dangers for something as trivial as a quasi-sporting event.

Arguments about technological benefits are unpersuasive.  Technological innovations can be tested in other ways, in other settings, without the same issues arising in the same way.  The competitive profit motive of auto racing and the purse might help instigate innovation, but that does not justify the loss of human life.

Actual testing tracks do not have to be built along the lines of the Indy 500.  Indeed, the Indy 500 track, which originally was brick, and has corners reportedly banked for cars going less than 100 mph, is not necessarily suitable for modern test track purposes.



And it is not clear that we even need to use human drivers, in a cockpit, for modern testing of vehicles.  It would be possible in today’s era to test vehicles, on remote testing tracks, with no actual driver behind the wheel, or with a driver who pilots the car remotely.  The point is not that there should be races run that way.  The point is, that if one argument for auto racing is that it could induce technological innovation, the response is that there are other ways to conduct the testing that are safer for humans.

An additional concern is the moral impact on moral conscience, from watering down the conscience by risking, or ending, human life for frivolous reasons.

One of the biggest challenges to human society in the current era, as always, has been to inspire the development of a stronger conscience in favor of respecting human life.

Terrorism; other forms of war; widespread prenatal child-killing (cast by its aficionados as the pseudo-clinical euphemism “abortion”); euthanasia; health care rationing; human trafficking; drug trafficking; permissiveness and sexual degradation; and other threats to human life and human dignity compound their initial impact by also besieging and undermining moral conscience.

We need a push to build a stronger moral conscience, in defense of human life, not efforts to weaken or water down human conscience.  We do not need the would-be excitement, sentimentality, false rationalizations, or mere habit-building, associated with something like auto racing, to whittle away at the proper formation of proper conscience.

One argument sometimes raised, to promote quietism in the face of the threats auto racing poses to human life, is a generic, abstract idea of simply pushing the limits of something, of going higher and faster, and so forth.

The problem is, that argument rests on the notion that limits do exist in the first place.

The issue becomes, what limits are appropriate, and what limits can be pushed.



For example, football is now realizing that head-on-head contact is a limit that has to be ratcheted back, with a firm line drawn in the sand, because of the reality of head injuries and their ripple effects.

With some kinds of risks, there is no need to push limits, because the limits are appropriate.

For example, a few individuals have parachuted from an altitude so high, that it felt like they were in outer space. In broad daylight, they rose by balloon to an altitude so immense that the blue sky disappeared, and the black sky and stars came out.  The first time that happened, the parachutist got to a point where he temporarily blacked out, and had to rely on the chute opening automatically.

The depths of the ocean are so bone-crushing with their water pressure that no human could survive without a heavy diving structure.  Yet it would be foolish to deliberately push the limits of depth for scuba-divers, to the edge of where they could be killed.  It would be frivolous to sell tickets to which whether somebody got killed scuba-diving, when they deliberately tried to go too deep.

Or, where limits exist, there might be other ways to push the limits, or to focus on pushing entirely different limits.  For example, in football, there are other ways to deliver hits without causing concussions.

One concern should be whether, in some childish, emotionalistic way, anybody would think that the seriousness of deaths and injuries in auto racing somehow translates into seriousness of purpose, or makes the race more “important.”  The opposite is true.  The seriousness of deaths and injuries in the sport highlight how frivolous the activity is, when compared with the sacredness of human life and the seriousness of the deaths.

Even worse would be if there is a small subset of the population that actually ever got a sick thrill from seeing accidents and the possibility of death.  In the Confessions of Saint Augustine, he describes a friend who apparently was addicted to visiting the “arena” as a spectator, which presumably meant gladiator fights or worse.  The friend apparently was an otherwise normal person, perhaps even aspiring to being a Christian like Saint Augustine.  The friend also knew that visiting the arena was something he should avoid.

Yet he found aspects of it addictive.

With regard to auto racing, one step that could be taken would be to make the organizers legally and financially responsible, under strict liability, for any deaths or injuries to spectators. One could try to argue that there is some assumption of risk by the victims.  Yet that is not a risk that anyone should be allowed to assume, because no reasonable person could assume such a risk and still be considered reasonable.  That is, no one in his right mind would think that sitting and eating a hot dog while a vehicle goes by at high speed is important enough to justify getting killed.

In the instance of the spectator in the late 1980’s killed randomly by a flying wheel, the widow reportedly sued for $9 million, then reached a confidential settlement.

Given financial responsibility and financial incentives, organizers would be in the best position to adopt better safeguards.

Another issue that might come up is whether some tracks or some circumstances are safer or more dangerous than others.  There has been a driving death at the Indy 500 track as recently as the 1990’s, however.

On the other hand, if other tracks and other races are more likely to have deaths now, and if shutting down tracks one-by-one, from this point forward, is the way towards a gradual step-by-step ban, so be it.



For the Indy 500 itself, one added twist is the race’s spot on the calendar on Memorial Day weekend.  Memorial Day, of course, has a focus on remembering and honoring our departed, including those who perished in military service defending the nation.  Indeed, the Indy 500 features taps as part of its ceremonies, as well as an invocation by a religious figure.  At a time when we remember the departed, and acknowledge those who made the ultimate sacrifice, the natural reaction should be to have a heightened respect for human life, and a heightened sensitivity to the realities, and loss, associated with death.  Sensitivities to these values should be raised, not lowered. To do otherwise would be un-Godly and un-American.





NEWSWATCH: “Death a grim chapter in storied history of Indianapolis 500” – AP

Race Car in Pits File Photo

[reposted from 2016]

“Yes, the Indy 500 is ‘The Greatest Spectacle In Racing’ … Mario and Dario and milk and balloons have built an event steeped in festive tradition … it prepares to celebrate its centennial …. But the race is also marked by tragedy. … 12 laps into the inaugural race in 1911, mechanic Sam Dickson became the first to die and he certainly wasn’t the last.

Drivers, mechanics, fans, even a little boy standing across the street … all are part of the 500’s saddest chapter, painful memories of just how dangerous racing on the bricks and asphalt has been …. At least 66 people have died because of auto racing since 1909 at the site, including 40 drivers, 14 mechanics and nine spectators. The 1930s was by far the deadliest decade with 21 deaths, while the ’50s and ’60s each saw eight people perish.

Click here for AP: “Death a grim chapter in storied history of Indianapolis 500”





NEWSLINK & VIDEO: “Scott Dixon out of #Indianapolis500 following scary wreck” – ESPN ……. #INDY500

Race Car in Pits File Photo

“Indianapolis 500 pole sitter Scott Dixon went airborne after making contact with Jay Howard, sending Dixon’s car into the inside fence and retaining wall in Turn 2 and shredding it in the process at Indianapolis Motor Speedway on Sunday. …”

Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court Nomination Marred by Association With Pro-Abortion Anthony Kennedy

Supreme Court Facade with Parkland and Blossoming Trees, adapted from image at supremecourt.gov

“… Justice Kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious … he taught me so much. I am forever grateful. … These judges brought me up in the law. Truly, I would not be here without them. Today is as much their day as it is mine. …” — Judge Neil Gorsuch, at the White House, Jan. 31, 2017

Neil Gorsuch was willing to clerk for pro-abortion Anthony Kennedy within roughly a year after Kennedy’s aggressive pro-abortion stance manifested itself in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), in which Kennedy was one of multiple coauthors of the Court’s decision. Kennedy apparently was the only active Justice that Gorsuch actually clerked for, part-time while Gorsuch used his status as a token clerk for retired Justice Byron White as a back door into the world of Supreme Court clerkships.

Even just last year, Kennedy abused his power on the Supreme Court to tip the balance in favor of attacking Texas requirements aimed at protecting women’s health, with Kennedy acting in favor of looser access to abortion instead.

Not only has Gorsuch failed to repudiate his past association with Kennedy, he spoke favorably of Kennedy, within the past two months, when accepting Donald Trump’s nomination of Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.



All of these facts raise serious questions about Gorsuch’s moral compass, judgment, analytical capacity and overall lack of suitability for a judicial position in the United States.

The issue is not simply how to parse some of Gorsuch’s words, in a dry, static, narrowly construed legalistic manner; the issue is what his words, posture and failure to speak, say about his thinking, abilities and character, past and present, against the backdrop of an underperforming, morally questionable legal profession and wholesale slaughter of vulnerable Americans in the womb.

Interestingly enough, the White House does not seem to make it easy to find Gorsuch’s full comments from January in text, even though they are included on the White House video.  According to a transcript from the Denver Post, Gorsuch asserted:

“‘I began my legal career working for Byron White, the last Coloradan to serve on the Supreme Court, and the only justice to lead the NFL in rushing. [Laughter] He was one of the smartest and most courageous men I’ve ever known. When Justice White retired, he gave me the chance to work for Justice Kennedy, as well. Justice Kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious, and like Justice White, he taught me so much. I am forever grateful. And if you’ve ever met Judge David Sentelle, you’ll know just how lucky I was to land a clerkship with him right out of school. [Waves] Thank you. These judges brought me up in the law. Truly, I would not be here without them. Today is as much their day as it is mine. …'”

The comments seem somewhat manipulative from the beginning, given the seeming implication that Gorsuch was trying to portray himself as having started out as a regular Supreme Court law clerk, only to scramble to continue helping the institution after his employer retired.  The facts seem to indicate that he actually started out, from the beginning, working for a retired Justice as a kind of token retirement benefit accorded the retired Justice, and, having inserted himself onto the scene, also took part-time work with Kennedy, as his only work for an active Justice.  Left out is whether Gorsuch even attempted to work for a more conservative or moderate Justice, or why it is he ended up with a human rights violator like Kennedy.  Additionally concerning is whether, with Trump failing to appoint a non-lawyer to the Supreme Court, he has ended up a lawyer so neck-deep in the artificial world of the legal profession that he “cannot see the forest for the trees.” One is left to wonder whether a status-hungry, resume-filling Gorsuch, lost in the arcane world of lawyers, decided that the pedigree of working for an active Justice was more important than the millions of American lives being snuffed out, and Rule of Law being undermined, by the anti-constitutional human rights violator that he was associating with when he worked for Kennedy.

There reportedly have been roughly 59 million surgical abortions in the United States since the Supreme Court began blocking prosecutions for abortions in 1973.

The Supreme Court’s decisions obstructing abortion prosecutions, seeking to enshrine prenatal child-killing as a would-be “right,” are illegal and an abuse of power.

The Constitution provides an explicit mechanism for amending the Constitution, including to account for shifts in public values.  A simple majority vote by an aggressive Supreme Court is not that mechanism.

Kennedy’s actions promoting abortion are an shockingly overt attack on, and violation of, the Constitution.

Under centuries of political theory, the core duty of any government, and any government’s core justification for existing, is the defense of innocent human life.

A democracy, in particular, rests its government’s legitimacy on serving the will and interests of its people, including protecting the rights of minority portions of the population, including safeguarding and respecting the rights of all persons living within the nation.  The most fundamental right, recognized since the founding of the republic, is the right to live and not be killed.



Kennedy and his pro-abortion confederates essentially have declared a civil war against an enormous, and most vulnerable, portion of the American population.  In the process Kennedy and his pro-abortion confederates have launched an assault on human life, an assault on Rule of Law, an assault on the American Way of Life and Americans themselves, and a relentless drive to arrogate to mere lawyers with political connections a fanciful self-proclaimed status of philosopher king.

Moreover, a key element of pro-abortion Supreme Court judicial ideology is to define, condemn and doom the victims precisely because of their helplessness, saying that it is because a victim is helpless (or lacking so-called independent “viability”) that members of that class of persons may be killed, on a massive scale, without cause, without due process, using methods that are almost unimaginably vicious and painful.  There are methods by which abortion is death by torture, ripping apart the bodies of living persons who can feel pain, while they are defenseless in their mothers’ wombs.

There are, of course, other issues of concern surrounding the troubled tenure of Anthony Kennedy.  However, so-called abortion is numerically the biggest threat to American lives, and, by that measure, on that basic level, the country’s biggest de facto national security threat.

Given that abortion is killing millions of Americans, Kennedy and his pro-abortion confederates are also essentially guilty of de facto domestic treason, and conspiracy to murder or conspiracy to become accessories to murder. Even if the mechanism for the mass-killing includes intermediate steps by a multitude of others, by comparison, if Kennedy simply issued a decree requiring sticks of dynamite to be made available to terrorists, to suggest that Kennedy would not share responsibility for the resulting deaths would be absurd.  The same is true of his efforts to “tee up” millions of abortions.

Kennedy and his pro-abortion confederates should be impeached and removed on that basis.  Congress has been remiss in failing to carry its duty in that regard, as a last line of defense placed upon Congress by the Constitution and the many Americans who have laid down their lives over two centuries to defend that Constitution and the American Way of Life, sacrifices for which Kennedy and the weak-willed Congress have demonstrated repeated contempt.



Additionally, abortion is racist and sexist, with a disproportionate impact on racial minorities and females, giving rise to concern over other severe moral and constitutional defects.  There also have been charges of abortion being used to cover up evidence of other crimes.

Yet instead of repudiating his association with Kennedy, Gorsuch observes:

“‘… Justice Kennedy was incredibly welcoming and gracious … he taught me so much. I am forever grateful. … These judges brought me up in the law. Truly, I would not be here without them. Today is as much their day as it is mine. …'”

There is a stark backdrop formed by the Kennedy ideology, and the horrific nature and mind-boggling magnitude of the harms Kennedy has helped impose upon America. Against that backdrop, one should call into question Gorsuch’s moral compass, judgment, intelligence, analytical ability and honesty, when observing Gorsuch’s lapse into a lassitude of “go along to get along, let’s celebrate the superficial feel-good status-building bullet-points in my resume,” given the irrational, unlawyer-like evils of Kennedy and Gorsuch’s recent ratification of his association with Kennedy.

To put it simply, to celebrate ties to Kennedy does not just mean Gorsuch is unfit for the bench, and should not have been confirmed for a federal court of appeals.  It means Gorsuch lacks leadership, is a weak figure and is not a very good thinker.

The scandal should be regarded as an embarrassment to Donald Trump.  Trump embarrassed himself by picking Gorsuch and by himself, Trump, praising Gorsuch’s past without caveats.

Even worse, Trump was supposed to be a highly capable outsider who was going to “play things straight” and “drain the swamp,” including giving a top priority to his duties as Commander-in-Chief to defend American lives.

Yet, instead of picking a non-lawyer who would help correct the low intellectual and moral standards of the legal profession, Trump picked a legal profession insider with an apparent “go along to get along attitude” even in the face of 59 million American dead.

Already Trump, the wealthy businessman who never really built much more than resorts, casinos and TV rating, is watering himself down.



There is the curious fact that the abortion issue had tipped the balance in recent presidential elections, with the prolife, traditional values majority apparently having a reflex to be tepid in the face of the Republican Party’s attempt to water down its nominees’ credentials.

In contrast, George W. Bush, despite not really being thoroughly prolife, managed to put together a prolife agenda with a specific big-picture focus, pulling in the prolife majority.  He did so largely by focusing on Supreme Court nominations, banning partial-birth infanticide and banning funding for prenatal killing, building a common ground on all those major points.  For example, while a majority of Americans are prolife, a vast super-majority support a ban on partial-birth infanticide.

John McCain and Mitt Romney, already raising questions and causing the traditional values majority to step back and wonder about their political fiber, failed to articulate the same kind of focus (and as a running mate Paul Ryan even allowed himself to articulate a modified pro-abortion view, openly admitting that his ticket supported abortion in some circumstances, an offensive and unbelievably impractical act that undoubtedly weakened the resolve of his potential base to expend greater energy in his behalf).

Trump, however, despite questions about his past views or values credentials, started to regain some focus on the specific practical major themes of the abortion issue and the big-picture steps he would need to take as President.  And Trump even drove his opponent to openly expose herself as an extreme radical on abortion and infanticide, out of step with all but a small portion of the electorate.

With Gorsuch, however, Trump begins to lose that focus.  He has failed to find the right nominee.  That Gorsuch could serve for three decades or more makes the situation even worse.

In the face of the Gorsuch nomination, there is, indeed, a need to avoid lassitude and complacency among the majority of Americans who consider themselves prolife.  One of the reasons four decades of mass-killing has rolled on is the willingness of portions of the prolife majority to tolerate weak efforts and compromised, watered down values posing as something more.

Americans who love their country and want to rebuild respect for Rule of Law should oppose Gorsuch, seek the impeachment and removal of Kennedy and his confederates and demand that Trump step up, do a better job and “get it right.”



Links & Resources

“Neil Gorsuch the Law Clerk” – SCOTUSblog

“Transcript: Neil Gorsuch’s full remarks after accepting the U.S. Supreme Court nomination; President Donald Trump introduced Gorsuch, a judge for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on Tuesday” – Denver Post 1.31.17

“President Donald J. Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court” – White House 1.31.17

“BIO: Judge Neil Gorsuch” – Fox News

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) – FindLaw

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) – IIT Chicago-Kent School of Law

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) – Justia

“Anthony Kennedy on Abortion” – OnTheIssues

“Supreme Court Strikes Down Modest Abortion Restrictions, Highlights 2016 Election Stakes” – Breitbart 6.27.16



 

NEWSLINK: “Neil Gorsuch the Law Clerk” – SCOTUS Blog

File Photo of Neil Gorsuch and U.S. Flag, adapted from image at whitehouse.gov

“… White had retired from the court in the spring of 1993. According to some accounts at the time, White had not hired a full slate of law clerks for the term that would start in the fall of 1993 because he had an inclination to retire. It is unclear whether #Gorsuch was aware of this when White hired him.

Following a tradition among retired justices, who are assigned one law clerk, White agreed to share his clerk with an active justice. Gorsuch thus became a part-time member of Justice Anthony #Kennedy’s chambers.

The #SupremeCourt heard arguments in 99 cases during Gorsuch’s clerkship, issuing 93 full opinions.The most high-profile merits cases that term involved protest buffer zones around abortion clinics, the use of gender-based peremptory challenges in jury selection and whether a rap song incorporating parts of a Roy Orbison song constituted fair use under copyright law.

Whether Gorsuch played any significant role in advising Justice Kennedy on the term’s merits cases remains a private matter. And the amount of time he devoted to the needs of the newly retired Justice White isn’t widely known. …”

VOA: China’s Two-Child Policy Shift May Be Too Little, Too Late

China Map

(Voice of America – voanews.vom) BEIJING — China saw a smaller than expected uptick in the number of births following its landmark decision to end the country’s controversial one-child policy

In 2016, the number of births in China increased following its landmark decision to end the country’s controversial one-child policy and allow all parents to have two children.

Officials were quick to claim success, arguing that the increase of around 1.4 million new births (compared with an average from 2010-2015) was a sign the new policy was working.



Nearly half of the 17.86 million births last year were second children, but the increase was much smaller than officials and experts expected.

For many families, it is not the statistics that are worrisome, but the financial demands parents face in raising a second child.

Not cheap

Liu, a government employee spending the day with his family at Houhai Lake in the central part of Beijing, said after the policy was rolled out a year ago, he and his wife considered having another. In the end however, they felt the burden was too much to bear.

“[I] wish we could have a second child. One child on his own, is too lonely,” Liu said. “It would be better to have two children.”

Many parents noted the extreme costs of living in China, in particular larger cities such as Beijing.

More than just food and clothing expenses, parents said they spend as much as $1,000 to $2,000 (some even more) each month on extracurricular classes for everything from art to dancing and skating lessons.

In many cases, parents said they are taking a wide range of courses to see where their children’s interests are and to give them an edge in a highly competitive country.

Education and extracurricular activities are not the only expenses, added James King.

“Of course, there’s also travel overseas, which is very expensive,” King said. “We try to travel abroad at least once a year.”



Shared burden

James and his wife Lucy, who have a second child, said that they feel the benefits outweigh the costs, but added each family’s situation is different.

“In the future, [a] child must deal with four elderly parents, but having a brother or sister can make it easier to divide up those responsibilities.”

What is clear is the two-child policy is really more a question that those with residence in China’s major coastal cities, such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, are struggling with. For those from other provinces, bigger families are more common, despite the restrictions.

But that doesn’t mean their children see things differently.

Life’s pressures

Bai, a young hotel management worker from neighboring Hebei province, said his family, like many others where he is from, ignored fines in the past, to have more children. Especially until a boy was born.

Although Bai has two older sisters and comes from a big family by China standards, he was cautious when asked about his eventual plans for having children.

“Life is very stressful, but if I was to have a child, one would be enough,” Bai said. “Either a boy or girl would be fine.”



Demographic juggernaut

Traditional Chinese culture puts more emphasis on giving birth to boys as they carry on the family name. And according to tradition, girls are expected to take care of the family they join through marriage.

The over-emphasis on boys has led to a massive gender gap in China, and for critics it is one of the tragedies of the one-child policy. And that’s not the only demographic challenge China faces despite its massive population.

China’s working population is shrinking as the number of pensioners increases rapidly.

Starting next year, there is likely to be a persistent decrease in the number of children being born, experts say, as the number of women eligible to have a second child will begin to shrink as more fill their quota.

Like many of its Asian neighbors, China has a low fertility rate and so far the government has offered little in the form of incentives to encourage more births aside from ending its one child policy. And because of that, some critics say, the policy shift may be too little too late.





NEWSWATCH: “List of #Trump’s executive orders” – Fox News

White House file photo

“… An order that directs federal agencies to ease the ‘regulatory burdens’ of ObamaCare. … ‘… on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.’ * * * An order imposing a hiring freeze for some federal government workers …. This excludes the military, as Trump noted at the signing. * * *  a notice that the U.S. will begin withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. * * *  … the … ‘Mexico City Policy’ … ban on federal funds to international groups that perform abortions or lobby to legalize or promote abortion. …”



Click here for “List of Trump’s executive orders” – Fox News





NEWSLINK: “President Trump signs executive order defunding International Planned Parenthood” – Live Action News/Becky Yeh

Baby Sleeping on Mother's Stomach, adapted from image at cdc.gov

“On Monday … Trump signed an executive order reinstating the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits federal funding from going towards foreign nonprofit organizations that promote or commit abortions. … The policy … was implemented by … Reagan … [it] will effectively defund International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. Trump … [also] has made promises to defund Planned Parenthood and make permanent the Hyde Amendment ….”

America Passes Horrifying Threshold, As Clinton Gets Fewer Votes Than Number of Americans Killed by Policies She Promotes, Yet Still Almost Wins Presidency

White House File Photo

Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently is on track to total roughly 56 million votes, compared with roughly 59 million surgical abortions in the United States performed since 1973.  The United States confronts the baffling and horrifying spectacle of a politician nearly winning the Presidency while getting fewer votes than the number of people killed by policies she promotes.

Clinton is rabidly pro-abortion, emphasizing abortion in her campaign and having taken the extreme step of supporting partial-birth abortion, something opposed by a super-majority of Americans.  She also has praised, and accepted money from, the country’s largest abortion provider.

Tentative numbers late on election night have Trump getting about 58 million votes, and third or fourth party candidates getting another 5 million or so.



So if Clinton had succeeded in getting a plurality, she would created something akin to a constitutional crisis, or pre-constitutional crisis, and a threat to the foundations of the American republic.  She not only would have been getting fewer votes than the total votes against her; she would have been claiming the Presidency with fewer votes than the total number of people killed by policies she promotes.

The number of Americans killed in the womb by abortion is 59 million, the number of people voting against her was about 63 million, and she got roughly 56 million votes.

It would have been impossible for Clinton to form a government with democratic legitimacy in the context.  It would be analogous to Hitler murdering 6 million Jews, getting 5 million votes, having 7 million people vote against him, yet claim to be the duly elected leader of a democracy.

Clinton’s status as a pro-abortion extremist makes her a grotesque human rights violator.  Yet the sheer numbers involved with the killings also make it impossible for her to realistically be a participant in a republic grounded on the values of life and liberty.

One cannot participate in government of the people, by the people and for the people, when one is wrapped up in killing the people, and taking money from an industry that kills people, whether they be adults or children in the womb.

America crossed a horrifying threshold by seeing a major party candidate get fewer votes than the number of people killed by policies she promotes, yet still see that candidate get nearly half of the electoral votes.

This shocking occurrence should be an added wake-up call to “draw a line in the sand” against the shocking moral and demographic magnitude of prenatal child-killing in America.  This reality also highlights the need to recognize that those embracing what is a widespread human rights atrocity have no place in public life in the United States, especially as the nation aspires to be a democracy, a republic and a civilized nation.





Is the Clinton Agenda Racist? Her Actions Say “Yes,” and Say Do Yours, If You Support Her

Hillary Rodham Clinton file photo, during raid on Bin Laden

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s agenda has a racist impact, as do your own actions if you vote for her or otherwise support her.

Prenatal child-killing — sometimes re-characterized by the pseudo-clinical-sounding term “abortion” — impacts African Americans to an alarmingly disproportionate degree, and with a magnitude that is mind-boggling.

It is the largest killer of African Americans, and it hits blacks at a rate several times that of whites.  Some have called abortion an Anti-Black Genocide, even as the overall American total of roughly 59 million abortions constitutes a broader Anti-American Genocide.

To put it simply, Black Lives don’t matter in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s agenda, given that she supports the continued decriminalization of abortion. She has praised the biggest U.S. abortion “provider,” including when she was Secretary of State and was not even supposed to be involved with the issue domestically.  And she has accepted money from the abortion industry.  And she has done all of this in a societal context where abortion has a massive racist impact.



Indeed, the foundress of that biggest abortion provider was quoted as saying that a purpose of her organization was to limit the number of Negro babies.  That was even before abortion itself was decriminalized.

One source estimates 16 million black women having had abortions since 1973, which would be a somewhat low number, if it only includes African American mothers, and does not include any white mothers abortion children fathered by African American fathers.  The 16 million dead African Americans is nearly half the remaining population of African Americans, which stands at 36 million.  The same source indicates:

“Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions. … black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion

. On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

We also have heard about how the radical left, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have tried to play racial minorities for fools otherwise, trying to grab their votes while leaving them living in substandard conditions with no real help to get out to a better life.

The left-wing candidate shows little regard, if any, for the number of black men going to prison, or the human rights atrocities occurring inside prisons, or the high crime rates in minority-dominated areas.  She shows little regard for the number of fatherless households or the high rate of unwed pregnancies and the impact on poverty.

Yet the abortion issue is even more stark, because, like the urban crime rate, it is a matter of life and death.

Despite serving as a figurehead Senator from New York, she does even not seem to care about the fact that, in one or more recent years, more black babies were killed in the womb in New York City than were born alive.

Considering the racist impact, for Black babies, it is like a lynching in the womb.



Add to that the fact that some portion of abortions are done by dismemberment.  And add to that the fact that, for some portion, past a certain month of gestation, the babies can feel the pain.

It is as if the Democrats went from being pro-slavery, to pro-segregation, to pro-abortion without missing a beat, with these lynchings in the womb, death by torture to innocent children.

Indeed, the Democrats did not necessarily really start trying to hold themselves as a party for blacks until the 1960’s, perhaps after Democrat-supported segregation already had been pushing African Americans to migrate to urban areas, where they then suffered urban ills.  And it was within less than a decade of that point, less than a decade from the 1960’s, that abortion was decriminalized, by leftist judges blocking prosecutions under laws that were already on the books.

The abortions, lynchings inside the womb, ended up impacting blacks on a much bigger scale than the lynchings that had occurred from tree branches.

Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a racist, by her actions.

And considering the nature and mind-boggling magnitude of abortion, and its racist impact … if you vote for her … or argue in favor of her online or at the grocery store … or put up signage or bumper stickers supporting her … or donate money to her … you are a racist, too.

By your actions, and their ultimate impact, you are a racist, too.





Voters in a State of Sin Should Not Vote

File Photo of Polling Place Sign in Multiple Languages, adapted from image at justice.gov

Just as voters who are drunk or high on drugs should not vote, voters in a state of sin also should not vote.

The last thing the country needs is to have persons with clouded judgment or clouded motives exercising political power, including exercising the power to vote.  Yet that is exactly what we would get, with voters casting ballots while in a state of sin.

Voting in a state of sin would distort judgment and perceptions, make it harder to act for good and make it easier to act for ill.

Sin clouds judgment and reorients priorities in the wrong direction.  Habits of sin also make it easier for forces of temptation, including personified evil, to work their way into perceptions, thinking and decisionmaking.



Making matters worse, we have an election where sin has been infused into certain political ideologies.  It is as if some candidates for President, for example, would like to be Enabler-in-Chief instead of Commander-in-Chief.

An Enabler-in-Chief would be someone who provides the serious sinner with the false pseudo-comfort of an “easy” way out, being told by the candidate that their evil doings, such as moral depravity, prenatal childkilling, euthanasia or so-called “assisted suicide”, are just fine, that there is no need to deal with the anxiety of confronting their guilty conscience, confessing the truth, repenting, converting and seeking a new life.

Now, some might try to argue that everybody is a sinner, and perhaps try to manipulate the question brush the whole matter aside.

To some extent that is true, although it is possible, for example, for a Catholic voter to go to Confession, receive Absolution, declare and seek a complete rejection of sin, then vote.

Nevertheless, let us revise the imperative to refer to serious sin, or rather grave sin or mortal sin.  Those who have killed others, without doing so in legitimate self-defense or the defense of others, should not vote.  That includes those who have involved themselves with prenatal child-killing, so-called “abortion.”  Exceptions might be made for those who have sincerely repented and converted, which, for Catholics, would mean taking the necessary steps, currently in place, to have their automatic Excommunication lifted.



An added problem such a voter gets into, however, is that, when a candidate is pro-abortion, or otherwise promotes serious sin, it becomes sinful to even engage in the act of voting, in favor of the Candidate Promoting Sin.  And doing so also would call into question the sincerity of the sinful voter’s claim to have repented.

For example, consider a voter who is a chronic masturbator, who sometimes has seized opportunities to fornicate, who got themselves involved with a pregnancy as the male or the female, and then got connected with an abortion murdering their child in the womb, either as the mother or as the father.  Perhaps the childkiller/ fornicator/ masturbator takes advantage of the current Pope’s Year of Mercy option to clear their status and escape damnation just by going to Confession.  And perhaps, with God’s Grace, they even abstain from masturbating and further fornicating.  If they then squander their new-found Graces, and cast aside their new life of freedom from evil by voting for a pro-abortion candidate, their repentance would be in doubt, and they would be sinning anew.

Those who have engaged in sexual gratification or activity of any kind, outside of Sacramental Marriage, are in a state of grave sin and should not vote.That includes adultery, fornication, sodomy, solo masturbation, mutual masturbation, the viewing of pornography and perhaps even looking at some other person in a lustful manner.

Christ said clearly that looking at another person with lust is like committing adultery in the heart.

Another problem today is that there are those who are so entrenched in sin that they have built up all sorts of structures sustaining it, such as cohabitating in a sinful “relationship” with shared housing, or using their business life to promote sin, such as belonging to a law firm that boasts about employing persons living in sin.

Those engaging in theft, or dishonesty, or other grave sins also should abstain from voting, although some might argue about how serious or large the theft or dishonesty has to be.

What is particularly bizarre in the current election is the presence of candidates promoting abortion.  The only “religions” pushing for the killing of children, in the womb or already born, are ancient demon-worshiping pagan rites and subsets of Satanists.  So one confronts a situation of an ideology of child-killing embraced only by demon-worshiping pagans, certain Satanists, and a handful of political parties and their minions.  That the political parties doing so try to recast the matter with manipulative false arguments, perhaps seeking to portray the evil as something opposite, is not only not surprising.  False arguments and manipulation, and evil trying to pose as “good” is a common modus operandi of evil. In the Gospel we even see that the devil itself tried to misquote Holy Scripture when seeking to tempt Christ in the desert.

We need voters thinking clearly, acting for good; we do not need the country’s future disrupted and diverted by voters in an altered state of bad judgment and corrupt spirituality, perhaps additionally with devils pushing them to think themselves clever if they vote for the devils’ candidate.

Yet, in this narcissistic childish culture, perhaps it would be easier to put it another way.

Voters in a state of sin are not really themselves.  It would be analogous to them being drunk or high on drugs, or in some other altered state.

While in a state of sin, they are in conflict with the true them, as well as in conflict with their true hearts.  The Law of God, God’s Law of Love that stands in conflict with sin, is engraved on the flesh tablets of the human heart. If we sin, we not only stand in conflict with God; we stand in conflict with our own true hearts.

At the very least, voters in a state of sin have clouded judgment, distracted distorted perceptions, and motivations that are different from the motivations that they would have as their true selves, in union with God, as the good person, the real person God Created them to be.

Voters in a state of sin, particularly a state of grave sin, should not vote.





NEWSLINK Daily Signal: “Planned Parenthood Entities Spend Over $38 Million to Elect Democrats”

Hands of Man in Suit Taking Cash From Envelope

“In the past three election cycles, PlannedParenthood’s advocacy and political arms, employees, and their families have spent over $38 million to elect or defeat candidates for federal office who decide how much taxpayers subsidize the nation’s largest abortion provider.”

NEWSWATCH: “Planned Parenthood’s Legal Fight To Kill Babies With Down Syndrome” – Daily Signal

Supreme Court file photo

As … Hillary #Clinton and #Hollywood continue to deceitfully prop up #PlannedParenthood … under the guise of women’s ‘health,’ the #abortion mill is … pursuing a legal battle … to kill unborn babies with Down Syndrome. … team[ing] up with the American Civil Liberties Union to try to have an Indiana law signed by Governor Mike Pence, which prohibits abortion for reasons of #race, #sex or genetic defect such as #DownSyndrome, thrown out. … [to be] heard by pro-abortion Obama-appointee Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. In July, Pratt granted the abortion mill’s request and blocked the law from being enforced. … House Bill 1337 also requires aborted or miscarried babies’ bodies to be disposed via humane practices of cremation or burial. …

Click here for Daily Signal Wire: “Planned Parenthood’s Legal Fight To Kill Babies With Down Syndrome”

[featured image is file photo]



NEWSWATCH: “Planned Parenthood’s Legal Fight To Kill Babies With Down Syndrome” – Daily Signal

Supreme Court file photo

As … Hillary #Clinton and #Hollywood continue to deceitfully prop up #PlannedParenthood … under the guise of women’s ‘health,’ the #abortion mill is … pursuing a legal battle … to kill unborn babies with Down Syndrome. … team[ing] up with the American Civil Liberties Union to try to have an Indiana law signed by Governor Mike Pence, which prohibits abortion for reasons of #race, #sex or genetic defect such as #DownSyndrome, thrown out. … [to be] heard by pro-abortion Obama-appointee Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. In July, Pratt granted the abortion mill’s request and blocked the law from being enforced. … House Bill 1337 also requires aborted or miscarried babies’ bodies to be disposed via humane practices of cremation or burial. …

Click here for Daily Signal: “Planned Parenthood’s Legal Fight To Kill Babies With Down Syndrome”

[featured image is file photo]



 

Would Hillary Rodham Clinton ever be able to form a legitimate government? No.

White House File Photo

Even if Hillary Rodham Clinton managed to stage an upset and win the election, she could not form a legitimate government. It would be akin to Hitler murdering six million Jews, having an additional six million people vote against him, receiving six million votes, then claiming that he was the duly elected leader of a democracy.

Aside from being a human rights violator on a massive scale, the simple math involved would see Rodham Clinton possibly receiving fewer votes than the number of Americans killed in the womb by policies she rabidly supports.

Nearly 59 million Americans have been killed in the womb by surgical abortion, not including additional numbers killed by chemical abortions, including by so-called birth control pills that often actually have abortifacient properties.



Barack Hussein Obama, II, got roughly 65 million votes against Mitt Romney in the last general election, with Romney picking up roughly 61 million.  In that election, the third and fourth party candidates combined for about 2 million votes.  Polls leading up to the 2016 election suggest that third and fourth party candidates might creep toward a combined 10 percent of the vote, not including at least a fifth candidate.

If similar numbers emerge, there could be a situation where about 129 million votes are cast, with up to 13 million getting diverted to third, fourth or fifth candidates, leaving a close race with Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton each getting around 58 million votes in a tight race.

Even if Rodham Clinton wins, she could end up doing so with fewer votes than the number of Americans murdered by policies she has intensely promoted.



There are reportedly about 320 million Americans; there would have been about 380 million including those murdered in the womb by abortion.

So the United States could end up with a situation where there should have been about 380 million Americans alive; 320 million are left living; 72 million vote against Rodham Clinton; 59 million were killed under policies she intensely promotes; and 59 million vote for her.  And, under those circumstances, she would be claiming to be the duly elected leader of a democracy.

The result would be a particularly perverse form of Apartheid, minority rule of a quite deadly variety.

She additionally has accepted money from the abortion industry.

Democratic legitimacy could not possibly be deemed to have been reached, or to support the notion of her holding power.

A nation is its people, and she would be alleging to be representing a people, under circumstances where she was connecting herself to the killing of wide numbers of that people, with more killings than votes, in totality.

Such a result would represent not only a constitutional crisis, but a crisis to the foundations of the United States as a nation, a threat to the moral, legal, philosophical and human foundations of the Republic.





 

 

NEWSLINK CBS: “Baby born twice after life-saving surgery outside of womb”

Medical Symbol

“… At almost 24 weeks, Cass and his team made an incision in Boemer’s abdomen and pulled almost half of Lynlee’s body out of her mother’s uterus to remove the tumor – which was almost larger than the baby herself. Then came the challenge of putting Lynlee back in and closing the uterus. ….”

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Radically Pro-Abortion Extremist, Calling Into Question the Patriotism and Basic Decency of Her Supporters

White House File Photo

Not only is Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton pro-abortion, she is among the most extreme pro-abortion politicians imaginable, voting in favor of partial-birth abortion.

A super-majority of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion, including at least some Democratic legislators who otherwise claim to support access to abortion generally.  Yet Rodham Clinton voted against banning partial-birth abortion.



Some commentators also accuse Rodham Clinton of otherwise essentially favoring liberalized abortion up to the point of delivery.

Rodham Clinton has financial ties to the nation’s largest abortion provide, and has praised that organization’s founder, even though the founder was known for racist views and connecting population control with racist motivations and eugenics.

The sheer magnitude of abortion in the United States is almost mind-boggling, with abortion killing more Americans in the womb than the totals killed in all U.S. wars.  Given that the right to live and not be killed is the most fundamental, foundational of basic human rights, abortion emerges as the most shocking and extensive human rights issue of our time.  Hillary Rodham Clinton is so deeply involved, and so deeply entangled, with abortion, she emerges as one of the most infamous human rights violators of our time.



In terms of sheer numbers, abortion is the biggest threat to American lives, and therefore is a bigger national security threat than terrorism or any conventional war.  Only a full-scale global nuclear war could surpass abortion as a national security to the United States.

Rodham Clinton’s culpability for abortion, as a practical matter, therefore makes her both one of the world’s most infamous human rights violators, and one of the biggest national security threats posed to the United States.

These realities call into question the patriotism, motives, good faith and basic decency of Rodham Clinton’s supporters and funders.  They also raise serious questions about the ethics and integrity of persons claiming to be Christian or Jewish who vote for her or otherwise lend their support.

Also questionable is whether Rodham Clinton should be involved at all with public service, or nonprofit activities, in any capacity at an level.



NEWSLINK Daily Wire: “Three Things You Need to Know About Hillary #Clinton’s Record on #Abortion”

Hillary Rodham Clinton file photo, during raid on Bin Laden

“Next to Barack #Obama, Hillary #Clinton may be the most pro-#abortion presidential candidate in American history. Clinton, and the Left in general, attempt to mask the heinous nature of the procedure they support by employing euphemisms such as “reproductive health” and “choice,” but in reality what they’re championing is the termination of innocent life, even at the latest stages of development. …”

NEWSLINK LifeNews: “58,586,256 Abortions in America Since Roe v. Wade in 1973 [as of Jan. 2016]”

U.S. Map

“… since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized #abortion 43 years ago in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton , more than 58 million unborn children have lost their lives. Each one of those abortions is a tragedy, not just because an innocent child died, but because of the lasting impact the abortion itself had on the mothers of those children. …”

NEWSLINK Live Action: “MYTH VS. REALITY: PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND BLACK GENOCIDE” 7.11.11

U.S. Map

“… Planned Parenthood was founded to curtail the “mongrel” population. Margaret Sanger wanted to discourage poor people of color from breeding, and to this day, whether they admit it or not, the foundation she created carries out her purpose. Abortion kills a disproportionate number of black babies. …”

Notre Dame should drop Stanford over abortion

File Photo of the Baslica of the Sacred Heart and Golden Dome at the University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame should drop Stanford over abortion.

Stanford University openly declares that they are an abortion provider.  Notre Dame, an ostensibly Catholic institution, should not be scheduling Stanford in football or anything else.

The Catholic view on abortion, the deliberate taking of human life, is so severe that Catholic Canon Law provides for automatic excommunication in connection with the procurement of abortion.



Stanford is open and notorious in announcing their involvement with the taking of human life, declaring at http://obgyn.stanford.edu/divisions/family_planning.html that part of their would-be “medical” services include abortion up to 24 weeks and so-called “medication” abortion, as well as various contraceptive practices that God and the Catholic Faith deem gravely sinful:

The Division of Family Planning Services and Research at Stanford University offers comprehensive, compassionate reproductive [sic] care for women …. The Family Planning clinic provides family planning services for women who seek birth control options, management of unintended and abnormal pregnancies, contraception for women with complex medical issues, difficult IUD/Implant insertion and removal, and comprehensive abortion care. The Family Planning division is also committed to research, resident physician and fellow training, and education in the field of family planning.

The Stanford Family Planning Clinic provides:

Contraception – all types: pills, patches, rings, injectables, IUDs (Mirena, Paraguard, Skyla), implants (Nexplanon)
Contraception for high risk women – contraception for patients with complex, challenging or chronic medical conditions
Emergency Contraception – “Plan B”, Ella
Pregnancy Testing and Options Counseling
Medication Abortion
Termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks
Permanent Female Methods – Essure, Tubal Occlusion
Medical and surgical management of miscarriage
Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) management

(emphasis added)



Here is a partial screenshot of that page, accessed Oct. 15, 2016, the same day that Notre Dame is hosting Stanford in football at Notre Dame Stadium.

Stanford University Abortion Services Screenshot





NEWSWATCH: “Half of Wisconsin Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid payments were fraud, auditors say” – Live Action

Defund Planned Parenthood, Over Scene of Prolife Demonstrators

An audit by Wisconsin’s Department of Health and Human Services has found that as many as two-thirds of all Medicaid payments to the state’s Planned Parenthood locations were fraudulent.

According to the audit of eight family planning facilities (five of which were operated by Planned Parenthood), roughly half of the funds they received came from fraudulent or otherwise-inappropriate billing practices. Auditors discovered that Planned Parenthood was the worst offender among facilities investigated, with the highest percentage of over-billing. … prescriptions not signed by valid prescribers, billing for quantities of medications that matched neither the prescribed nor dispensed quantities, failing to prove medication was even dispensed, reimbursement for unnecessary duplicative drugs, and more.

Click here for Live Action: “Half of WI Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid payments were fraud, auditors say”

 



NEWSWATCH: “Fire Sweeps Through Russian Warehouse, Killing 17 Workers” – Time/Yahoo

Map of Former Soviet Union, CIS, Western Portion, adapted from image at cia.gov

A fire swept through a Moscow printing plant warehouse on Saturday, killing 17 migrant workers from Kyrgyzstan … young women trapped in a dressing room … changing into their work clothes.

The fire was caused by a faulty lamp on the first floor of the warehouse, where many flammable liquids and paper products were stored, and it spread quickly through an elevator shaft to the room …

Click here for Time/Yahoo: “Fire Sweeps Through Russian Warehouse, Killing 17 Workers”

 



 

NEWSWATCH Deal Hudson/The Christian Review: “The Catholic Church Doesn’t Really Care About Abortion”

Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception file photo, adapted from image at loc.gov

… To make matters even more stark, Hillary Clinton has made the support of Planned Parenthood, the proven seller of infant body parts, part of her political platform, while the platform of her Democratic Party has announced a more extreme pro-abortion clause than in previous elections. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has promised to sign a bill defunding Planned Parenthood and has published a list of potential #SupremeCourt nominees all in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

* * *

Pro-life Catholics need to wake up and realize that most of the ‘officialdom’ of the Catholic Church in the U.S. is already rolling out a national campaign that is virtually an arm of the Democratic Party. If you don’t believe me, start tracking the various conferences and forums being offered in your diocese, drill down to look at the host organization, the speakers, and their topics. Better yet, attend one and publicly voice your pro-life preferences and see what happens.

Click here for Deal Hudson/The Christian Review: “The Catholic Church Doesn’t Really Care About Abortion”



NEWSWATCH: “Death a grim chapter in storied history of Indianapolis 500” – AP

Race Car in Pits File Photo

Yes, the Indy 500 is “The Greatest Spectacle In Racing” … Mario and Dario and milk and balloons have built an event steeped in festive tradition … it prepares to celebrate its centennial …. But the race is also marked by tragedy. … 12 laps into the inaugural race in 1911, mechanic Sam Dickson became the first to die and he certainly wasn’t the last.

Drivers, mechanics, fans, even a little boy standing across the street … all are part of the 500’s saddest chapter, painful memories of just how dangerous racing on the bricks and asphalt has been …. At least 66 people have died because of auto racing since 1909 at the site, including 40 drivers, 14 mechanics and nine spectators. The 1930s was by far the deadliest decade with 21 deaths, while the ’50s and ’60s each saw eight people perish.

Click here for AP: “Death a grim chapter in storied history of Indianapolis 500”




Should the Indy 500 be shut down? Is auto racing disrespectful of human life?

Race Car in Pits File Photo

According to AP, there have been 66 deaths in connection with the Indy 500 site since 1909, including 40 drivers, 14 mechanics, nine spectators and a little boy playing in his own yard nearby.  Additional deaths, of course, have occurred in other venues.  The deaths have continued up to the current era, and have involved some of the most elite drivers, as has also occurred with stock car racing.

At a time when we need to be encouraging respect for human life  and the development of a stronger conscience with regard for human life and the dignity of the human person, in the face of assaults upon respect for human life, it probably is a good idea to ban auto racing.  Some first steps could include holding organizers financially responsible for any deaths or injuries, on a strict basis, with multiplying financial penalties added, without regard for supposed assumption of risk by spectators or participants.




Sentimentality and would-be tradition, especially in a sleepy setting like Indiana, not necessarily steeped in many other traditions, should not be an obstacle to changes.  I myself like hearkening back to some old family connections with the race, which were nice in the themselves, yet that does not balance out with more important considerations and  proactive steps to move forward.

I have mixed feelings about the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500.  My paternal grandfather, God Rest His Soul, built at least one race car that ran in the Indy 500, back in the late 1920’s or early 1930’s.  My father had early childhood memories of Eddie Rickenbacker coming to the house, the great World War I flying ace who developed a passion for auto racing and, at one time, owned the Indy 500.  The family connection with racing would be interrupted when my grandfather passed on prematurely, in his late thirties, apparently from health-related reasons, when my father was only eight years old.  Years later, a brother-in-law became CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and briefly had his company sponsor a car, from a racing team led by a racing legend.

While human life in any era is sacred and precious, there is, perhaps, a temptation to think that the deaths are part of a murky past with less sophisticated technology and lower safety standards, or related to the skill of a driver. The first death at the race was in 1911, in the very first race, when a mechanic was killed.

However, just five years ago, Dan Wheldon distinguished himself as an elite driver by winning the Indy 500 for the second time, only to get killed in a crash the same year at another track.

Interestingly enough, my father, God Rest His Soul, never seemed to take people to the race, in my memory, although he and my mother did take me to qualifications once. (Ironically, the driver we saw on foot, standing near our bleachers, by coincidence was the racing legend who later had his team sponsored by the brother-in-law.)

But before I was born, my father did take some older siblings to the race itself, and there was a huge accident involving a large number of cars.  Footage from the accident would actually be used in a feature film about the Indy 500.  Real-world footage of the accident and its aftermath was embedded within the dramatized action of the film.  As I watched that movie, as a rerun on a television, one of the older siblings came into the room, saw the accident, and said that he recognized it, as an accident that had occurred at the race he was taken to, years earlier, by my father.  He remembered the iconic moment when, amidst the chaos, a wheel snapped loose and came rolling out of the chaos, continuing down the track at high-speed by itself, with no car attached.

Years later, my father and mother did attend at least one race when the brother-in-law’s company sponsored a racing team.

But, during that long hiatus, perhaps my father was quietly dissuaded from going to more races, after taking what were then small children to a race, only to witness a massive multi-car accident.  More so than witnessing an accident, there also is the danger of spectators getting killed.  In the modern era, in one instance, a wheel that broke off in an accident hurtled upwards and into the stands, killing a spectator completely at random, halfway up the stands.

It is unquestionably disrespectful to human life, and therefore un-Godly and un-American, to subject human beings to those dangers for something as trivial as a quasi-sporting event.

Arguments about technological benefits are unpersuasive.  Technological innovations can be tested in other ways, in other settings, without the same issues arising in the same way.  The competitive profit motive of auto racing and the purse might help instigate innovation, but that does not justify the loss of human life.

Actual testing tracks do not have to be built along the lines of the Indy 500.  Indeed, the Indy 500 track, which originally was brick, and has corners reportedly banked for cars going less than 100 mph, is not necessarily suitable for modern test track purposes.

And it is not clear that we even need to use human drivers, in a cockpit, for modern testing of vehicles.  It would be possible in today’s era to test vehicles, on remote testing tracks, with no actual driver behind the wheel, or with a driver who pilots the car remotely.  The point is not that there should be races run that way.  The point is, that if one argument for auto racing is that it could induce technological innovation, the response is that there are other ways to conduct the testing that are safer for humans.

An additional concern is the moral impact on moral conscience, from watering down the conscience by risking, or ending, human life for frivolous reasons.

One of the biggest challenges to human society in the current era, as always, has been to inspire the development of a stronger conscience in favor of respecting human life.

Terrorism; other forms of war; widespread prenatal child-killing (cast by its aficionados as the pseudo-clinical euphemism “abortion”); euthanasia; health care rationing; human trafficking; drug trafficking; permissiveness and sexual degradation; and other threats to human life and human dignity compound their initial impact by also besieging and undermining moral conscience.

We need a push to build a stronger moral conscience, in defense of human life, not efforts to weaken or water down human conscience.  We do not need the would-be excitement, sentimentality, false rationalizations, or mere habit-building, associated with something like auto racing, to whittle away at the proper formation of proper conscience.

One argument sometimes raised, to promote quietism in the face of the threats auto racing poses to human life, is a generic, abstract idea of simply pushing the limits of something, of going higher and faster, and so forth.

The problem is, that argument rests on the notion that limits do exist in the first place.

The issue becomes, what limits are appropriate, and what limits can be pushed.

For example, football is now realizing that head-on-head contact is a limit that has to be ratcheted back, with a firm line drawn in the sand, because of the reality of head injuries and their ripple effects.

With some kinds of risks, there is no need to push limits, because the limits are appropriate.

For example, a few individuals have parachuted from an altitude so high, that it felt like they were in outer space. In broad daylight, they rose by balloon to an altitude so immense that the blue sky disappeared, and the black sky and stars came out.  The first time that happened, the parachutist got to a point where he temporarily blacked out, and had to rely on the chute opening automatically.

The depths of the ocean are so bone-crushing with their water pressure that no human could survive without a heavy diving structure.  Yet it would be foolish to deliberately push the limits of depth for scuba-divers, to the edge of where they could be killed.  It would be frivolous to sell tickets to which whether somebody got killed scuba-diving, when they deliberately tried to go too deep.

Or, where limits exist, there might be other ways to push the limits, or to focus on pushing entirely different limits.  For example, in football, there are other ways to deliver hits without causing concussions.

One concern should be whether, in some childish, emotionalistic way, anybody would think that the seriousness of deaths and injuries in auto racing somehow translates into seriousness of purpose, or makes the race more “important.”  The opposite is true.  The seriousness of deaths and injuries in the sport highlight how frivolous the activity is, when compared with the sacredness of human life and the seriousness of the deaths.

Even worse would be if there is a small subset of the population that actually ever got a sick thrill from seeing accidents and the possibility of death.  In the Confessions of Saint Augustine, he describes a friend who apparently was addicted to visiting the “arena” as a spectator, which presumably meant gladiator fights or worse.  The friend apparently was an otherwise normal person, perhaps even aspiring to being a Christian like Saint Augustine.  The friend also knew that visiting the arena was something he should avoid.

Yet he found aspects of it addictive.

With regard to auto racing, one step that could be taken would be to make the organizers legally and financially responsible, under strict liability, for any deaths or injuries to spectators. One could try to argue that there is some assumption of risk by the victims.  Yet that is not a risk that anyone should be allowed to assume, because no reasonable person could assume such a risk and still be considered reasonable.  That is, no one in his right mind would think that sitting and eating a hot dog while a vehicle goes by at high speed is important enough to justify getting killed.

In the instance of the spectator in the late 1980’s killed randomly by a flying wheel, the widow reportedly sued for $9 million, then reached a confidential settlement.

Given financial responsibility and financial incentives, organizers would be in the best position to adopt better safeguards.

Another issue that might come up is whether some tracks or some circumstances are safer or more dangerous than others.  There has been a driving death at the Indy 500 track as recently as the 1990’s, however.

On the other hand, if other tracks and other races are more likely to have deaths now, and if shutting down tracks one-by-one, from this point forward, is the way towards a gradual step-by-step ban, so be it.

For the Indy 500 itself, one added twist is the race’s spot on the calendar on Memorial Day weekend.  Memorial Day, of course, has a focus on remembering and honoring our departed, including those who perished in military service defending the nation.  Indeed, the Indy 500 features taps as part of its ceremonies, as well as an invocation by a religious figure.  At a time when we remember the departed, and acknowledge those who made the ultimate sacrifice, the natural reaction should be to have a heightened respect for human life, and a heightened sensitivity to the realities, and loss, associated with death.  Sensitivities to these values should be raised, not lowered. To do otherwise would be un-Godly and un-American.