Ireland considers bill to criminalize dissent from same-sex civil unions

From Life Site News.

Excerpt:

While Irish legislators prepare to pass civil partnership legislation, the country’s Catholic bishops conference has issued a last minute call for a halt to the plans. Failing that, they said, parliament must allow for “greater recognition of the proper autonomy of Churches and the right to social and civil freedom in religious matters.”

“This includes the right of individuals to the free exercise of conscience,” they said.

The planned legislation includes a provision to force civil marriage registrars to comply with requests from homosexual partners. Under the bill, a civil registrar who conscientiously refuses to carry out such a ceremony will face criminal prosecution, a possible fine and up to 6 months in prison. Similar penalties will be meted out for anyone refusing for reasons of conscience to rent meeting facilities for homosexual partnership ceremonies.

[…]In Britain and other jurisdictions where “gay marriage” or homosexual civil partnerships have been created, legal conflicts have immediately emerged over the rights of religious objectors. The UK has seen a flurry of cases in which Christians in many public roles have been silenced or sacked for refusing to accommodate the homosexualist ideologies.

Comments will be strictly monitored in accordance with Obama laws restricting free speech on controversial topics.

Obama’s traditional allies are beginning to notice his incompetence

First, in the UK. (H/T Scrubone)

Excerpt:

What a difference 18 months and an oil spill makes. In January 2009 Barack Obama was hugely popular on this side of the Atlantic, and could have walked on water in the eyes of the British media, the political elites, and the general public. In June 2010 however he probably qualifies as the most despised US president since Nixon among the British people. In fact you can’t open a London paper at this time without reading yet another fiery broadside against a leader who famously boasted of restoring “America’s standing” in the world.

When even Obama’s most ardent political supporters in Britain, including Boris Johnson, are on the offensive against the White House, you know the president’s halo has dramatically slipped. It’s hard to believe that any politician could become more disliked in the UK than Gordon Brown, but Barack Obama is achieving that in spades. And as Janet Daley noted of the British press, the love affair with Barack is well and truly over.

As I wrote previouslywe are witnessing one of the worst exercises in public diplomacy by a US government in recent memory, one that could cause significant long-term damage to the incredibly important economic and political partnership between Great Britain and the United States. And for those who say this is minor storm in a tea cup, I would point out that it is highly unusual for a British Prime Minister to have to stand up to an onslaught against British interests by an American president, as David Cameron has just done. In fact the prospect of a major confrontation between Downing Street and the White House grows stronger by the day.

But this is not the whole picture. President Obama’s handling of BP is part of a far bigger problem. This is an administration that has consistently insulted Britain, and has even sided with her foes in some cases, most notably in its wholehearted support for Argentina’s call for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, a position that has been strongly backed by Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez. Time and time again, the Obama team has undercut America’s key allies, from London to Prague to Jerusalem, while kowtowing to the enemies of the United States in the name of engagement. It is a disastrous foreign policy that not only weakens American global power, but generates resentment and anger in nations that have traditionally stood shoulder to shoulder with America.

And even on CNN, the network that put Obama into office.

Excerpt:

CAFFERTY: Wolf, it turns out that recovery is in the eye of the beholder. President Obama and Vice President Biden have kicked off a massive P.R. campaign, celebrating what they’re calling ‘recovery summer.’ They say the $860 billion economic stimulus bill is working. The White House says two and a half million jobs have been created, and that the number should reach three and a half million by the end of this year. They’re highlighting new jobs at thousands of infrastructure projects across the country.

But the celebration may be premature. Just yesterday,  the Labor Department reported new claims for jobless benefits jumped by 12,000 last week- much sharper increase than was expected, and it shows that the pace of layoffs has not slowed appreciably. Plus, we still have a national unemployment hovering just below 10 percent. An editorial in the Washington Times, called ‘Obama’s Endless Summer of Spending,’ suggests the administration’s ‘make-work’ jobs program has failed, and that those infrastructure jobs, which are being funded by the taxpayers, will disappear when the stimulus money runs out- soon. Fact is the current recovery has been one of the worst for job creation ever.

Meanwhile, the picture in many of the 50 states is terrible and getting worse. State and local governments are cutting wherever they can, in order to meet their budgets, reducing or eliminating public services, underfunding state pension plans, and cutting 230,000 state and local government jobs in just the last couple of years.

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is out with a dire warning that the U.S. may soon reach its borrowing limit if we don’t make some drastic changes and reduce our $13 trillion national debt. But President Obama wants billions more for stimulus spending. Somewhere, there appears to be a rather serious disconnect.

I blogged before about how underwhelmed MSNBC was with his lame oil spill speech. His presidential approval numbers are around -20.

Scott Klusendorf confronts a “pro-life” nun who voted for Obama

Pro-life debater Scott Klusendorf wrote this article on the Pro Life Training web site.

Excerpt:

Nun: If only our students were completely pro-life on all issues.  I am consistently for life, and that’s why I’m voting for Senator Obama.

Me: Sister?

Nun: That’s right, I’m for Obama.  He’s the real pro-life candidate.  Most people focus too much on abortion.  I’m pro-life and care about all life.  So does Obama.

Me: What do you mean people focus too much on abortion?1

Nun: I mean Bush with the war in Iraq has killed so many people there is no way I could vote for someone like Senator McCain, who will do the same thing.  How can any person who cares about life vote for such a man?

Me: Are you suggesting the President unjustly killed innocent people?  If so, how?

Nun: Yes I am!  Think of all those innocent women and children killed in Iraq—over a million of them since we invaded the place six years ago.

Me: Did you say over a million?  How did you come up with that number?

Nun: I heard it someplace.  Besides, war is a pro-life issue like abortion and right now it’s even worse than abortion.

Me: To be worse than abortion, how bad would an unjust war have to be?

Nun: Abortion, war, poverty—they are all bad.

I’m sure you all recognize the tendency of some people to refuse to make judgments like “greater than” and “less than” when they are debating – because to put numbers to different things and admit that one thing is much worse than another (or more likely) would undermine their view.

The fact of the matter is that 30,000 innocent civilians TOTAL being killed in the process of liberating an entire country and deposing a dangerous tyrant, is NOT the same as 1.2 million unborn babies being killed PER YEAR because their parents refuse to be inconvenienced by the consequences of their own  hedonistic behavior.

And not only are the numbers different but the justification for the taking of a life is different in each case, too. Just wars are fought because the loss of civilian lives is not as bad as the failure to restrain a more dangerous threat to peaceful democratic nations. For example, the deaths of innocent civilians in the fire-bombing of Dresden in order to defeat the tyrant Hitler. But in the case of abortion, the justification is just that the selfish pursuit of pleasure of the parents justifies the killing of an innocent unborn child.

I have always been concerned by naive pro-lifers who think that big government socialism would someone be the answer to the problem of what to do with helpless unborn children. “Social justice” they call it. Well “social justice” won the election in 2008, and now we have taxpayer-funded abortions. Why? Because the people who voted to grow the government didn’t want to be inconvenienced with children. But the unborn children never got to vote – they were just too small to count.