31,875

Values, Acts of Torture, and Obama
December 19, 2014

 

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, torture is defined as “the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something.”

On this subject as it applies to the U.S. intelligence actions and alleged terrorists captured and interrogated, the Obama administration has said publicly that tactics such as waterboarding and other forms of “torture” are “brutal, wrong, and counterproductive.” The administration has been outspoken on this topic, including the release of the controversial CIA report, for Obama believes that enhanced interrogation tactics are “contrary to our values.”

Personally I find Obama’s statements on this subject dubious at best, hypocritical at worst.

ObamaWe know, for example, that the Obama administration takes nothing short of extremist positions when it comes to torturing/killing preborn babies or threatening the health and welfare of vulnerable Americans. We know Obama turns a blind eye to such atrocities. 

So is it any wonder that one is left speculating which set of values Obama is actually talking about?

Think about these facts.

We are learning that advance directives may be hazardous to your health. An advance directive is a document that many people sign in order to have a plan in place in the event they become ill and are unable to speak for themselves. But one expert, Dr. Ferdinando Mirachi, said in an interview that when patients cannot speak for themselves, clinicians may forgo treatment—even for a treatable condition—when an advance directive and DNR order is present. 

Further, as the federal government becomes more invasive into our lives with the national health care law and its consequences, other equally suspect practices could well become the norm, resulting in the premature deaths of those who entrusted their care to the wrong people.

Such practices are “contrary to our values,” yet the Obama administration never utters a word.

Did you know that those involved in bioethics are debating why it may be ethical to take the lives of severely disabled newborns? “Arguing from a quality-of-life standpoint, [a Canadian bioethicist] writes that ‘Once we have concluded that death is what is in the best interest of the infant, it is unreasonable not to bring about this death as painlessly and as much controlled in terms of timing by the parents as is feasible.’” While this advocacy comes from a Canadian bioethicist and is essentially the promotion of infanticide, there is no doubt that the same attitudes and practices exist in the United States as well. A Live Action video in which a nurse describes the act of “putting a baby in a toxic solution to ensure its death” is but one example. Such actions are “contrary to our values,” yet the Obama administration never utters a word.

And perhaps you did not know that cases of statutory rape involving an older man sexually victimizing an underage teen have been covered up by Planned Parenthood on more than one occasion. The sheriff’s office in Pinal County, Arizona, alleged in one case that “a Planned Parenthood counselor intentionally covered up the rape of a 15-year-old girl by a serial rapist, and that the cover-up slowed the arrest of the perpetrator.” The same scenario has played out in Los Angeles and only God knows how many other locations in the United States.

For the record, statutory rape is a crime. Not only that, but the violent act is “contrary to our values.” However, where Planned Parenthood is involved and is guilty of a cover-up, the Obama administration simply looks on. 

If these are not examples of the hypocrisy hidden in Obama’s words, then what are they?

Each of the acts I have described is a form of brutal torture. The sad outcome for many of these innocent victims is death. Each is a tragedy that is indeed “contrary to our values.”

To be clear, the values I write about are the values on which this nation was founded. They are based on natural law principles—a set of ethical guidelines that are apparently foreign to the understanding of President Obama. 

So we are left to wonder: What are your values, Mr. President?

 

Click the button to subscribe to Judie Brown's commentary in iTunes.

Tolerance of Evil Is Not Freedom
December 16, 2014

 

Recently a short YouTube video came to my attention. It is the Christmas message from LifeSiteNews and the words spoken are powerful because the essence of the message is so urgent in today’s marketplace of ideologies, phony rhetoric, and misshapen concepts about freedom. It reminded me once again of how twisted and illogical America’s pursuit of personal rights has become, not to mention the devastation it has already left in its wake.

Freedom paintThink for a moment about the gift of procreation for example. We all know—no matter the faith persuasion or lack thereof—that according to nature it takes a man and a woman to create a child. The contribution of each when combined renders a human being with precise, individual strands of DNA. That resulting human being is neither his father nor his mother, but rather his unique new self.

This miracle of life comes about because of the freedom we have to understand the gift of our individual sexuality and treat it with the reverence it deserves. We have it and we can either cherish it or abuse it. To comprehend this fundamental truth about ourselves is to take the first step toward understanding the truth about our identity as human beings. Once we get that part we can then ask in all seriousness whether or not the freedom we claim to possess gives us the right to do whatever we want when we want, no matter the consequences.

According to 2014 measures of morality and ethics, the answer to that question is complex. If we are talking about the “right” to use chemicals that harm women and can potentially kill babies, the conclusion should be that this is not a fair description of freedom but rather an aberration that makes no sense.

Yet, to many of us, the answer is that we have every “right” to do what we please with our own bodies because we have the freedom to choose. We say we can use contraception and abortion with nary a single restraint in the law to stop us. We call this freedom.

The consequences of such thinking are, as we know all too well, devastating. Millions of preborn babies have died. Countless numbers of families have been destroyed. Not only that, but nobody knows exactly how many women have been maimed or rendered sterile in the wake of such irrational abuses of what man defines as freedom.

So step back and think about this quote: “The evil of the modern age is The Evil of The Blur. It’s the evil of excusing things, or ignoring things, of just letting it all go as long as it isn’t impacting me.”

Yes, it’s the evil of tolerating the idea that freedom does not come to us because we deserve it or even because we have earned it; true freedom comes from understanding that there is good and there is evil, there is right and there is wrong. And that, depending on the choices we make, we can either become slaves to our own selfish appetites or free men who respect the laws of nature and do not tolerate the oppression that comes from advocating that which is destructive and frequently murderous to a fellow human being.

Lastly, in any debate about what freedom really is, we Christians have the upper hand. This is so because we know that Christ said, “If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).

This is what freedom really is—the freedom in Christ that is always worth fighting for or dying for because it is the antidote to cultural tolerance of everything harmful and deadly to the innocent. 

Tolerance of evil is not freedom!

 

Click the button to subscribe to Judie Brown's commentary in iTunes.

Babies, Plan B, and Abortion
December 12, 2014

 

The so-called morning-after/emergency contraceptive pill, Plan B, has been a hot topic in pro-life circles over the years. The same is not true in the wider community, including high school and college populations. There are several reasons for this, including the inordinate publicity it receives from the mainstream media. It seems there is a vested interest in making sure teens in particular know how to use it, where to get it, and why it helps “avoid” pregnancy when unprotected sex occurs.

Lies, of course, since Plan B and others like it can kill a preborn child if he is conceived and is on his way to implanting himself in his mother’s womb. But who cares about facts when big bucks and building a customer base are at stake? 

Planned Parenthood is at the forefront of engineering the positive discussion about this pill. Of course the reason for this is pure and simple: money! Stop Planned Parenthood International reports: “Planned Parenthood, however, has sold 14,408,352 of its ineffective emergency contraception kits since 2001, at an average selling price of $32 per kit, generating an estimated $461,067,264 for Planned Parenthood. While Planned Parenthood pocketed hundreds of millions, it capriciously exposed women to the myriad health consequences associated with hormonal contraceptives taken in high dosages. Clearly, Planned Parenthood’s focus is on generating obscene amounts of income—not on women’s health.”

The publicity surrounding this deadly pill has always tended to be on the positive side, even though it is clear that Plan B is not safe for either preborn children who happen to be conceived or the women who take it without understanding either how it works or the health risks associated with it.

So when we found this story first published by Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust we were grateful that someone spoke the truth. And we committed to making it as widely known as possible. Why? It shows beyond a doubt that the next generation of pro-life leadership is armed and ready to defend the innocent with the fullness of truth.

Samuel Riley’s article “Athena’s Eyes Began to Tear Up as I Spoke” tells the story of a young woman confused about what Plan B actually does:

A young high school student approached me: “My mom always told me it was awful to use as a contraceptive, but what about rape?” I told her that the baby shouldn’t be punished for something the dad did and she agreed that abortion is always wrong.

She went and sat on the curb. She came back about ten minutes later and introduced herself. . . . 

“I have to ask you something. Is Plan B abortion?”

“Well, it can be, if you’re really pregnant,” I explained. “When someone takes Plan B, they do it assuming they are. If you are pregnant, it kills the embryo which has its own unique genetic code.” 

Athena’s eyes began to tear up as I spoke. “No one ever told me. I felt guilty, but I was never sure why. I just can’t believe I killed my baby.”

I told her that her feeling of guilt came from God’s law and told her about His forgiveness. I encouraged her to use this experience to help her friends avoid the same tragedy. 

Thank you, Sam, for speaking from the heart and telling it like it really is. 

We must make sure everyone understands that the real purpose of Plan B is not worry-free sex. It is a toxic drug resulting in death for the baby who could be conceived and sorrow for the female who chooses sexual relations rather than the joy that accompanies remaining chaste until marriage.  

If you want to learn more about Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, visit its website to educate yourself, your friends, and your family. Learn the facts about birth control chemicals and devices. What you learn may save a life. 

Plan B is really no plan at all.

 

Click the button to subscribe to Judie Brown's commentary in iTunes.

False Narratives a Pox on America
December 9, 2014

 

The media has saturated readers with stories surrounding the recent actions of police officers in Missouri and New York. The language used by reporters and commentators to define the individuals they have faulted in these cases is quite compelling, but perhaps also more than a little hypocritical. 


Tearful BabyI say that because, when I hear certain words, I am immediately reminded of the media’s deafening silence when it comes to reporting about a preborn child who dies because of the violence that is the act of abortion.

Excessive force is a term some toss around these days. According to one online legal resource it means “the use of force greater than that which [is] reasonable and prudent” for a law enforcement officer. But when the incident in question is the taking of the life of a preborn child by a physician—an act which is neither prudent nor reasonable—the police can only look on, for the law is silent. In fact, not only is the law silent, but it protects the killer rather than the innocent.

We are told that these recent cases of men rendered dead by the use of force allegedly perpetrated by policemen are examples of acts of discrimination and brutality. Reporters argue that these acts were committed against those who some say are innocent of any wrongdoing.But as these cases unfold and we hear the rhetoric—much of which is bravado—some of us are left with a very bad taste in our mouths. 

So I will say it again. And again. The innocent baby from the beginning of his biological life is not guilty of any wrongdoing. This child has not carried out even the smallest crime. In spite of these facts, a heinous act of murder is committed against babies hundreds of times daily as the public—including the justice system—looks on.

Obviously there is a legal distinction. The direct killing of a living, breathing human being who has survived the womb is always an act that should be investigated to the full extent of the law. That is what justice requires. But of course, the justice of which I speak is not applicable to a child whose mother has been given a legal right to pay a third party to kill him as long as he is not yet fully born. 

Excessive force should never be used against an innocent preborn, but it is every day.

Discrimination should never be employed by any group of people, yet lawmakers, physicians, and families discriminate at will against preborn children of every color at every stage of their biological development.

Brutality is always a suggestion of an uncivilized act unless the victim who is brutalized is a preborn child.

The narratives we hear regarding the recent unfortunate incidents are hollow because there is no justice for anyone born or preborn as long as the law is blinded by political agendas and erroneous decisions by judges who are incapable of understanding the true meaning of justice.

When St. John Paul II analyzed the question of just versus unjust laws, he wrote:  

The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church.  . . . This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that “human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence.” And again: “Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law.”

And this is the crux of the matter. On the one hand man’s law is used to protect those who are accused of a crime, but on the other hand the law protects deadly crimes committed against the innocent prior to birth. 

It is clear that the laws protecting perpetrators of abortion are unjust, and yet those who could expose this duplicity remain silent or decry the tactics of those of us who do what we can to save the lives of these babies.

This false narrative is a cultural pox on this nation. The sooner that this disparity is exposed and dealt with honestly, the sooner will our nation heal from all forms of injustice, including discrimination, abuse of excessive force, and brutality.

 

Click the button to subscribe to the Judie Brown's commentary in iTunes.

Archbishop Blasé about Sacrilege
December 5, 2014

 

Chicago’s new archbishop has already become a darling of the mainstream media. This past weekend Archbishop Blase J. Cupich was interviewed by CBS News program Face the Nation. Cupich discussed a number of topics, one of which was Holy Communion for well-known, pro-abortion Catholics in public life.

CupichThis excerpt from his interview with Face the Nation’s Norah O’Donnell reveals quite a bit: 

O’DONNELL: But you in your own background appear to have emphasized conversation [over] confrontation. You haven’t been particularly confrontational with politicians who disagree with you on issues like abortion, for instance. Do you think the Eucharist has become too politicized?

CUPICH: Well, I think that is important always to begin with an attitude of dialogue. It’s important to listen to people and it’s very hard to have dialogue because in order for someone to tell you why they think you are wrong, you have to sit in patience to allow that to happen. The community—as I say—cannot be the place where those discussions are fought, but rather we have to look at how we’re going to deal with the tough issues of the day in a constructive way and as adults who respect each other.

O’DONNELL: So, when you say we cannot politicize the Communion rail, you would give Communion to politicians, for instance, who support abortion rights.

CUPICH: I would not use the Eucharist, or as they call it the Communion rail, as the place to have those discussions or [a] way in which people would be . . . excluded from the life of the Church. The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins. So my hope would be that that grace would be instrumental in bringing people to the truth.

Note that O’Donnell begins by relegating the act of killing a preborn child to nothing more than a political issue. The archbishop in turn does not take umbrage at these words and in fact plays the same game himself—as is evident in his response to O’Donnell. 

The question of dialogue as discussed by Cupich suggests that, in a case like that of abortion, it is better to approach the truth of the matter by feeling out where someone else is coming from so that the discussion can occur in a constructive way rather than one that causes anguish and alienation. The purpose of such a discussion, it seems to me, should be to educate the one who is in error.

On that point the archbishop is right. But the problem arises when we take a Nancy Pelosi or a Joe Biden or any number of solidly pro-death Catholic public figures and insert a name into the equation. Is the archbishop actually suggesting that a Pelosi or a Biden deserve an opportunity to explain their defense of direct killing even though they have remained intransigent and defiant of Church teaching for years?

Based on something Cupich said years ago, I would suggest that no, he is not saying that at all. He simply is not interested in protecting Christ from sacrilege, even though the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.” Cupich’s words in a 2008 article entitled “Racism and the Election”—published in the nominally Catholic Jesuit magazine, America—disturbed readers when they equated abortion with racism. He stated, “The promotion neither of abortion nor racism can ever be a motivation for one’s vote. Voting for a candidate solely because of that candidate’s support for abortion or against him or her solely on the basis of his or her race is to promote an intrinsic evil.”

By setting up a straw man in equating racism with abortion, much like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops did, Cupich immediately denigrated the urgency of calling abortion by its proper name: murder!

Racism is prejudice at its worse to be sure. But racism is not always a heinous crime like that of abortion. Clearly the comparison is erroneous.

Honestly, the archbishop’s recent interview with CBS should not shock anyone. Cupich is a prelate of the Church who clearly prefers political correctness to instructing folks like Pelosi and Biden that they may not commit sacrilege against the body of Christ by receiving Him in Holy Communion. (Matthew 26:67)

Action Item: We all must make our voices heard. Respectfully contact Archbishop Cupich and explain your concerns, and that these concerns come out of love and respect for the Church and for the body of Christ. We show our love for Christ with our actions. If we do nothing, and turn a blind eye, we deny Him the respect and adoration He deserves.

Most Reverend Blase J. Cupich
Archbishop of Chicago
PO Box 1979
Chicago, IL 60690-1979
Phone: 312-534-8230
Fax: 312-534-6379
E-mail:

 

Click the button to subscribe to the American Life League Podcast in iTunes.