July 3, 2013 (LiveActionNews) – A national pro-life organization is outraged after three major American newspapers rejected a pro-life ad as “too controversial.”
The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and the LA Times refused to run an advertisement created by Heroic Media.
The ad features a hand holding a 20- to 24-week-old baby with the quote, “This child has no voice, which is why it depends on yours. Speak Up.”
Heroic Media Executive Director Joe Young said he was shocked and angered that the media outlets were willing to talk about the issue but were unwilling to show the reality of life at 20 weeks.
“I am disturbed that these papers would run article after article promoting the notion that abortion is a victimless act without consequences,” Young said. “The fact remains, children who are unique individuals – never again to be duplicated – are being killed in the most violent way imaginable and they feel the excruciating pain of that death.”
The newspapers took issue with the image of the baby.
“It seems as though it is okay to talk about the issue in general, but when you actually put a face to the discussion, then it becomes controversial,” Young said.
Last week after the House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Heroic Media put out a statement requesting that the pro-life community contact their senators and encourage them to consider and support the Act.
“Americans deserve to know the truth about the children sentenced to die for no fault of their own and that we have a chance to spare some of them through this legislation,” Young said.
The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prevents an abortionist from performing an abortion at or after 20 weeks, based on empirical scientific medical evidence that proves that unborn babies can feel pain. Science shows that at eight weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch, and at 20 weeks, the unborn baby responds to what would be felt as pain.
The image shows a 20- to 24-week-old baby in a person’s hands. Heroic Media’s goal was to show what life looks like at 20 weeks. The non-profit organization has resubmitted the ad with a different image, now one of a 20-week-old baby in utero.
The Chicago Tribune has now agreed to run the ad with the second image as long as Heroic Media indicates that it is an advertisement.
“Our hope is that the American public begins to advance this debate with both the mother and child in mind,” Young said.
Heroic Media is a non-profit whose mission is to educate the public in general and reach women facing unplanned pregnancies with life-affirming alternatives through the use of mass media, such as television commercials, internet outreach, and billboards.
“This issue, the late-term killing of developing children, is one that should be addressed in the U.S. Senate, and we encourage our fellow citizens to let their Senators know our desire to see that happen,” Young said.
Kathy Schiffer wrote a post yesterday that moved Samuel Adams beer from a purveyor of too-politically correct advertising to dedicated Christian basher and misogynist.
I wrote a couple of days ago about the Samuel Adams beer commercial in which the company aired an ad that conflated their beer with the Declaration of Independence and then paraphrased it to take the words “endowed by their Creator” out of this quote?
Once the not-so-surprising backlash began, Samuel Adams issued the meaningless comment (I wouldn’t call it an apology) that they were just following the guidelines of the beer manufacturer’s association. I assume that Samuel Adams beer is a member of this association and voted on these “guidelines” which hardly makes them binding. The comment is, as I said, meaningless.
However Kathy moved the discussion to a whole new level by informing her readers of Samuel Adams’ past behavior. She is speaking of Samuel Adams’ company chairman, Jim Koch, when she says (emphasis mine):
It appears that Mr Koch made the usual lame comment when the public got angry. “We are not in control of the program,” he claimed, “and it was never our intent to part of a radio station promotion that cross the line.” In 2002, Boston Beer Company Chairman Jim Koch (pronounced “Cook”) was the so-called Grand Marshall of the “Sex for Sam” stunt, a radio contest on WNEW-FM in Manhattan. Syndicated radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony staged a contest, challenging couples to engage in sexual activity in risky public places: in taxis, in ATM vestibules, in the Disney Store and—wait for it!—in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Couples earned points (5, 10 or more) for each tryst in a public place. The couple who succeeded in engaging in sexual intercourse in St. Patrick’s Cathedral were awarded 25 points for their effort. The only way to earn more points was to engage in coitus at Koch’s feet—for which enterprising exhibitionist couples earned 30 points.
There are a few holes in the denial I [underlined].
First, as Kathy points out:
Of course, this was the third time Koch’s company sponsored the “Sex for Sam” contest. And while acknowledging that his “presence on the show was a lapse in judgment, a serious mistake,” Koch has avoided describing just what he was doing in Opie and Anthony’s studio.
Along with handing out bottles of Sam Adams to contestants who stopped by the studio to take a break from having sex in cabs, ATM vestibules, and the Disney Store, Koch also served as the contest’s official “celebrity” voyeur. That meant if couples had sex in front of Koch, they were awarded 30 points (by comparison, sex in St. Patrick’s Cathedral was worth 25 points).
According to the audio clips you’ll find below, Koch watched as five couples attempted to obtain those 30 points (only two, um, succeeded). While Koch said he felt embarrassed for the three couples who failed to complete the act before him, he told Opie and Anthony that the competitors were, “awesome, all of ‘em, better teams. The quality gets better every year. (To read the rest go here.)
Second, he was advertising on and participating in the Opie and Anthony Show. Does anybody remember Opie and Anthony? They’re the sorry excuses for men who “interviewed” a “homeless” man and laughed approvingly and joked with him as he described in graphic terms how he wanted to rape and beat then Secretary of State Congoleeza Rice and also how he wanted to rape First Lady Laura Bush to death. I’ve heard a recording of this routine. I am not going to say more about it, because it makes me too angry.
One ad might mean that the advertiser approved the campaign and was not aware of exactly what each specific ad had in it. Lame comments about following their own manufacturer’s association guidelines are admission that they knew, approved the ad, are not sorry and think we’re all stupid enough to buy their little comment as a reason.
But four times is a pattern, especially when three of those times involved active participation by the company’s founder and chairman. It moves the question from political correctness carried to the point that we are now editing the Declaration of Independence (which is bad enough) to deliberate Christian and Catholic bashing. The kind of thing the company sponsored on Opie and Anthony puts them outside the line, or at least it does with me. The fact that they supported Opie and Anthony …. no words.
I believe that the “comedy” routine about the First Lady and Secretary of State came after Samuel Adams’ beer sponsored the Sex for Sam promotion. But it is in keeping with what the continuous message of the show. Opie and Anthony had one “joke:” degradation of women and overt misogyny. In my opinion, misogyny, including incitment to violence against, and in some cases such as the one concerning the First Lady, murder of women, for laughs was the Opie and Anthony show.
Frankly, I don’t see how any decent human being would ever advertise on Opie and Anthony, based on their misogyny and support of violence and degradation of women.
My advice to those who want a clean conscience: Lay your money down for a product that does not support Catholic bashing, Christian bashing, dehumanizing and degrading exhibitionist sex and does not buy advertising on shows that promote the rape, battering and murder of women.
A new fence is being built between Israel and Egypt (photo credit: Yuval Nadal/Flash90)
Israel’s new security fence along the Israel-Egypt border has stemmed the tide of illegal immigration to Israel and has been protecting Israel from terrorists operating in the Sinai Peninsula, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday.
“The fence that we built is making a significant contribution to blocking illegal migration to Israel,” Netanyahu said ahead of the weekly cabinet meeting, noting that the fence has blocked 99 percent of African migrants from reaching Israel.
The border fence has taken several years to construct, at an estimated cost of NIS 1.4 billion ($377 million).
“In practice, nobody has entered and the few who have arrived did not reach Israel’s cities,” he continued. “The fence has completely stopped illegal migration to Israel, but it also has an additional function — namely counterterrorism.”
Every day that passes “underscores how correct and how important the decision was to build the fence in the south,” the prime minister said. “You must remember that this fence is equipped with very advanced means… to protect the State of Israel against the double threat of illegal migration and terrorism from Sinai.”
The fence, which is yet to be fully completed, was originally planned just as a barrier to keep out migrants, but was upgraded to include motion sensors, cameras and heightened security after multiple cross-border incidents that occurred in the wake of the 2011 Egyptian revolution, which resulted in a drastic decline in law and order in the Sinai.
One cannot be a real conservative, or even a real American, without recognizing the danger that government decisions cannot be trusted and that government needs to be viewed with skepticism, and with public scrutiny. Distrust of government is baked in to the cake of America’s governmental institutions and traditions.
“Question Authority” was a dominant political theme in the ’60s and 70s We’re talking about the 1760s and the 1770s, of course — the American Revolution. Well, sure, the 1960s and the 1970s, too. But our country was founded on the idea “Question Authority” while opposing the King of England in the 1760s and 1770s.
Over this July 4th long weekend, we are called to remember how good cheeseburgers and hot dogs taste when grilled outdoors in the backyard. Oh, wait. That’s not it. Don’t tell me; it will come to me! Hearty cheers to the family Grill Master, always. But there is more to July 4th than potato salad, chips, and sizzling hamburgers.
The Fourth of July — more than any other holiday — is supposed to be a celebration. From the very first July 4th celebration in 1776, it was meant to be a party. Our Founding Fathers wanted it that way, and said so explicitly. Unlike any other holiday, it was established to be a community-wide blast celebrating America’s independence and creation as a new nation.
But what is the real meaning of America? Should you love and trust your government? Should you respect our leaders? Not “do you”. Should you? An enormous cultural divide has developed, from ignorance of American history, on whether it is right or wrong to trust our governments (local, state, and national) in the United States of America.
Many who imagine themselves to be conservative equate loving America with loving our government. If you love your country, you have to love and trust our government leaders, they subconsciously assume. They are offended by talk of not trusting our leaders and bureaucracies.
Newt Gingrich explained it like this: last week you thought your brother-in-law wasn’t too smart. This week he gets a job working for the government. Now he is all-wise and can make decisions for everyone else in society… because he is a government employee. This author wonders: if that government employee quits his job, does he then lose intelligence and wisdom when he re-enters the private sector?
Your neighbor on one side works in the private sector. Your neighbor on the other side works for the government. The first neighbor is only a mere mortal. The other neighbor is an all-wise, perfect, noble, pure philosopher king… because he works for the government. Of course, when he quits and gets a private sector job, he will magically transform back into an ordinary human being.
The very meaning of America is that imperfect men must both be restrained from potential misdeeds by government, yet those same imperfect and untrustworthy men also populate the government. The same nature of people who make government a necessity also fills that government and makes it also dangerous and suspect itself.
Therefore, we must always suspect, distrust, supervise, and suspect government. Always. It is in the DNA of America that we tolerate a limited government because people are capable of evil. But those same fallen people (capable of evil) also work in the government and run the government. So we cannot trust the government any more than we would trust a society without a government.
It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
James Madison
This is the problem: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” James Madison understood that government is not run by angels. Yet, the government being made up of perfect, noble, demi-gods who are all-wise and morally pure is the vision of liberals, moderates (but I repeat myself), liberal-tarians (nasty liberals trying to hijack and abuse the noble libertarian tradition), and the like.
But how dare we assume evil motive by government leaders? Well then, why do we need a government at all if you believe that people are fundamentally good?
Conservatives fight for precautions to make sure that dangers do not materialize. Even if you have never been robbed, do you lock your door? Do you leave your keys in the car? You’ve never had a fire, so go ahead and smoke in bed or put candles next to the curtains on the window sill. The entire concept of America’s political tradition is to prevent problems by assuming the worst, and creating structures that minimize the risks. The goal is to make sure that bad things almost never happen.
When conservatives fight for safeguards, checks and balances, restraints on government, protections, and precautions, they are scoffed at and ridiculed, on two themes: First, that conservatives are paranoid and worried about nonexistent or minimal threats. Second, that it is offensive to suggest that our American government could ever misbehave or trample on our rights.
From the other side, a tea party sign “Dissent is The Highest Form of Patriotism” headlines the political website “Delaware Politics.” One cannot be a real conservative, or even a real American, without recognizing the danger that government decisions cannot be trusted and that government needs to be viewed with skepticism, and with public scrutiny. Distrust of government is baked in to the cake of America’s governmental institutions and traditions.
A real American believes nothing the government says — but remains open to seeing proof. We know that the government lies. But more than that, we know that everyone lies more the more often they see they can get away with it.
If the government ever declares martial law, it will be done in the name of some good purpose like saving the children. A law that suspends the U.S. Constitution will be labeled “the child protection and defense of women act of 2017.” And naïve and gullible people will fall for it, and believe the label, without looking at the substance.
So, this 4th of July weekend, let us celebrate our unique, strange and wonderful American invention: we live with a government we must never trust. And that is not so unusual, really. The government should be applauded when it does well and criticized when it does wrong. But government leaders and bureaucrats must realize that we are watching and we will know the difference.
Don’t tell me you are a conservative if you haven’t read them. Don’t tell me you love America if you haven’t read what those who wrote the Constitution said about the Constitution to explain it. Remember that the creators of our U.S. Constitution explained why the States should ratify the Constitution in a series of articles published in newspapers around the country. These newspaper articles explaining the Constitution were collected and republished as The Federalist Papers.
Marx’s key concept was “class struggle.” That’s where PC comes in. PC seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior, just like Marxism, on all Americans and is, therefore, quite totalitarian in nature. PC is, in concept, similar to Marxism, but its focus is upon culture, rather than economics, as the class struggle environment.
The excellent AT article “Conservatives Pushing Back” by Bruce Walker explored what we conservative thinkers (We are, after all, American Thinkers) have known for quite some time: political correctness (PC) is to culture what Marxism is to economics. To recognize that fact arms us with what we need in order to push back. As Walker says (emphasis added), “[t]hese marketplace ballots are the key not only to the survival of a non-totalitarian America, but also to the final defeat of those whose minds and wills are chained with hard, cold manacles of leftism.”
Walker’s article is (pardon the pun) right on the money. So, in an effort to further understand PC, exploration of its similarities to Marxism is in order.
Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883) was a German socialist. Marx’s social, economic, and political theories proclaimed that societies progress through class struggle. His focus was upon economics, so Marx concentrated on the conflict between an ownership class that controlled production and a proletariat that provided the labor for production. He referred to capitalism as the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” The proletariat, the oppressed workers, were supposed to be the beneficiaries of a social revolution that would place them on top of the power structure.
Marx’s key concept was “class struggle.” That’s where PC comes in. PC seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior, just like Marxism, on all Americans and is, therefore, quite totalitarian in nature. PC is, in concept, similar to Marxism, but its focus is upon culture, rather than economics, as the class struggle environment.
PC, just like Marxism, forces people to live a lie by denying reality. PC takes a political philosophy and says that on the basis of the chosen philosophy, certain things must be true, and reality that contradicts its “truth” must be forbidden — eradicated since it disputes PC, exposes as untrue what PC says is true. People are reluctant to live a lie, so they use their eyes and ears to see reality, to say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true; the power of the state [PC] must be put behind the demand to live a lie.” Marxism, by denying economic reality, did exactly the same thing.
Robert Byrd
PC, just like Marxism, has a method of analysis that always provides the answer it wants. For PC, the “answer” is found through deconstruction, which takes any situation, removes all meaning from it, and replaces it with PC’s desired meaning. Walker references this point when he says, “[T]hat her [Paula Deen’s] devout Christian faith is more the real target than past use of an unhappy word which did not keep Robert Byrd from remaining, by election of his fellow Senate Democrats, the most powerful Democrat politician in America.”
New Black Panther voter intimidation
PC, just like Marxism, depends upon defining what it considers good and bad groups. It defines good groups as “victims” of bad groups. The victims can never be anything but good, regardless of what their actions may be. Witness what the Black Panthers did in Philadelphia, PA in 2008 and 2012. Any group identified as good by PC (homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, feminist women, mentally and/or physically challenged people, the poor, environmentalists, the list goes on and on) must be shown deference, both physically and linguistically. They must not be offended, must not be insulted.
Any group identified as bad by PC, such as white males or any Christian group, can be offended. This offense, PC practitioners say, “makes up” for past offenses certain to have been committed in the past by bad groups. And what’s worse is that the PC practitioners get to define the offenses committed by the bad groups. This situation, by definition, is a “self-fulfilling prophesy.”
Rush Limbaugh, in 2010, said, “Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.” The PC crowd labeled Limbaugh’s statement offensive and insulting. Imagine that. Limbaugh was just “calling a spade a spade.” Like it or not, PC cannot prevent mental retardation, cannot alter reality. But that doesn’t stop them from trying.
PC, just like Marxism, depends upon expropriation. PC is literally taking over our language, and woe be unto him/her that dares speak the truth. When Marxists took over Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie by confiscating their property. Similarly, when PC takes over our culture, quotas are set. The so-called bourgeoisie are told whom they can and can’t hire, and in what quantities they can hire. As an example, see what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is currently up to. And let’s not forget affirmative action, a system of expropriation if there ever was one, another PC favorite. When a black or Hispanic student (or some other “victim”), who isn’t as well-qualified as a white student, gains university admittance through affirmative action, the white student’s admittance is expropriated.
PC, just like Marxism, has a single factor explanation of all of history. PC says that all history is determined by power, by which groups have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. Period. PC is all about gaining power for the good groups that it defines. To further that goal, PC literally rewrites history. And PC says that the Bible is actually about race and gender. Nothing is beyond the PC crowd.
Photo released by George Zimmerman’s defense attorney of his injuries.
As an example of what PC has done and is currently doing, examine the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case/trial. First, always PC, Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama said, “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Then, ever PC NBC doctored the 911 recording; thus, “NBC created this false and defamatory misimpression using the oldest form of yellow journalism: manipulating Zimmerman’s own words, splicing together disparate parts of the recording to create the illusion of statements that Zimmerman never actually made.” Here is what PC tried to do before the trial. “Many viewed the early lack of charges against Zimmerman as unequal justice for a black victim. More than 2 million people signed an online Change.org petition demanding ‘Justice for Trayvon Martin.'” Now, the prosecution is trying to say that Zimmerman is a liar, that his injuries were not life-threatening. I’m quite certain that AT readers can cite numerous other examples.
The U.S. has become an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology and history that has been defined by PC. People convicted of “hate crimes” as defined by PC are currently serving jail sentences for political thoughts contrary to PC. And it’s only getting worse — PC continues to spread.
Marx believed his ideology, his economic system to be true. But, reality contradicted his system. His ideology did not adjust to reality.
Hopefully the PC ideology will soon suffer a similar fate. It is, as Walker points out, a corrupt ideology. The only problem is that we will have no country, will have an economic disaster once people are confronted with reality, when enough people say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true.”
Meanwhile, the Democrats/Progressives/Liberals who will not adjust to reality continue the PC ideology. And they have convinced the MSM and enough low-information voters to continue to empower them as all three groups continue to ignore reality.
Charlton Heston once said, “Political correctness is tyranny with manners.” Tyranny, yes, but practitioners seem to have forgotten the manners part.
Dr. Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.
The Peanut Gallery 