Tag Archives: Birth

Podcasts

Free speech: Mark Steyn radio interview and Ezra Levant radio debate!

3 Comments

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from Blue Like You! Thanks for the link Joanne!

Canadian/American free speech activist Mark Steyn on the line with Chicago radio show host Milt Rosenberg. Commercial free!

Extension 720 – Mark Steyn – June 1, 2009

URL : http://www.wgnradio.com/media/mp3file/2009-06/47337079.mp3

Duration : 1 hours 29 mins 26 secs

He re-caps the history and outcome of his trial in Canada for offending Muslims, and goes on to discuss his previous book “America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It” and his new book “Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West“. He reviews the state of free speech, Western Civilization, single-payer health care, welfare, anti-Western attitudes in education, and the 2008 election results.

BONUS

Ezra Levant reports on his debate against secular-leftist professor Lucie Lamarche on CBC radio. Note that the start time is 1:12 into the show. Press pause, let the clip buffer for a few minutes, then drag the slider to the 1:12 position.

Last Sunday I was on Michael Enright’s CBC radio show, The Sunday Edition, debating human rights commissions along with Keith Martin, the Liberal MP, and a nutty professor called Lucie Lamarche.

You can listen to the show here — it’s the May 31 edition. The debate starts at about 1 hour and 12 minutes into the show.

[Lamarche] loses her grip at 1:25 when Enright challenged her on the lack of due process and natural justice in HRCs. Her first response is to dismiss the horrors of HRCs as my own personal story. When I pushed back, citing the very section of the Alberta act that allows warrantless search and seizures, and pointing out that targets of HRCs don’t get legal aid, she just collapsed, saying that “discrimination is about attitudes… and transformation. It’s not only about due process.”

Oh. So to hell with the law or fairness. Guys like me need to have our attitudes transformed. It’s not law. It’s brutal politics pretending to be the law.

I like this Lucie Lamarche — for her honesty.

After a few minutes of her reading her talking points — likely authored by the battallion of PR flacks at the Canadian Human Rights Commission — she just stops pretending that HRCs are about justice. They’re about politics and propaganda — making political dissidents like me conform to the “official line”. And the high costs? That’s just an additional punishment for our thought crimes.

Seriously: when she ran out of her prepared talking points, she said what she truly believed: this was about transforming attitudes.

Ezra also hints at which kind of people fight back to defend human rights, and what kind of people destroy human rights:

Readers, do you think that Orwell or Solzhenitsyn would call Lamarche a defender of human rights, or a destroyer of them?

Do you think that giving the state the power to transform your attitudes is a protection of your freedoms, or an abridgement of them?

Do you think that Lucie Lamarche follows in the footsteps of dissidents who challenged the conventional wisdom, like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi — or is she a descendant of the censors and bullies who tried to shut those two up?

Do not miss this debate podcast! Ezra is on fire!

And remember: we know that the secular-left believes in pounding down the good and lifting up the evil, so that moral judgments become impossible and no one feels badly for being morally evil. Remember Evan Sayet’s explanation for how progressives think: moral equivalence, postmodernism and moral relativism. And atheists do not have the ability to resist Islamo-fascism: they want to be happy, not to be heroes.

Humor

Friday night funny: waterboarding, same-sex marriage and capitalism

1 Comment

Our first Friday night funny this Friday comes to us from Scrappleface, by Scott Ott. He reports on a story that you may not have heard about this week, the CIA’s offer to help Nancy Pelosi remember when she voted for the same interrogation techniques that she now opposes.

Excerpt:

In an effort to clarify exactly when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew that the U.S. employed enhanced interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, on terrorists, the CIA today offered to question the California Democrat.

“With the passage of time, memory gets clouded,” said a CIA source who spoke on condition of anonymity. “But we have learned how to clear away the clouds, and bring into sharp focus the relevant details.”

Rep. Pelosi initially said she had not been briefed on the harsh interrogation methods, then said she thought the briefings she did receive were theoretical in nature, and now her associates say the Speaker knew in early 2003, but didn’t protest out of respect for ‘appropriate’ legislative channels.

“A woman in Nancy Pelosi’s high-stress position, can get overwhelmed by the constant drip, drip, drip of information,” the CIA source said. “It’s easy to lose isolated details among the battery of facts that assault her daily. But a little time alone with one of our seasoned counselors should remedy that.”

Our next funny is also from Scott Ott. It turns out that proponents of same-sex marriage are not at all happy with the way that heterosexuals undermining the sanctity of same-sex marriage.

Excerpt:

The boom in childbirth by unwed mothers has some American homosexuals concerned about the sanctity of their newly-minted marriages, according to a spokesman for the Defense of Gay Marriage Association (DOGMA).

Some 40 percent of all children are now born to unwed mothers, according to National Center for Health Statistics. Among minority groups, the news is even more stunning. Black single Moms give birth at twice the White rate, and Hispanic solo mothers bear babies at triple the rate.

“All of this is bad news for the institution of traditional gay marriage,” said the unnamed source at DOGMA. “It’s hard not to see this as another example of homophobia. Gays finally start getting the right to marry, and what happens? We see straights abandoning the practice. Heterosexual bigots are looking at marriage and apparently saying, ‘That’s so gay!’”

The advocacy group claims that no society has survived the collapse of the institution of marriage, and it backs a Constitutional amendment forcing cohabiting couples to wed.

I would support a Constitutional amendment banning out-of-wedlock birth – as Captain Capitalism noted in an earlier post, unwed motherhood is nothing but child abuse. Co-habitation, no-fault divorce, government-run day care, and drugs for controlling children are anti-child policies. I am against pre-marital sex. I am for abstinence and chastity. I value the rights of children over the “happiness” of irresponsible adults.

And our final story this week is from IMAO.us. I used to spend hours reading over his old “In My World” posts. I just love things that are totally made-up in which very serious people do very silly things. Frank links to this video in which you can learn more about capitalism than you can while getting a Law degree from Harvard!

Happy Friday!

UPDATE: I cannot let this go unblogged: What happens with Jim Treacher joins Nancy Pelosi and Haiku?

You get Pelosiku!

From Hot Air and Michelle Malkin:

What’s this trigger do?
Ouch, my right foot really hurts
Let’s try the left one

***

As I tell my tales
Watch me blink out in Morse Code:
“I’m a lying [bleep]”

***

I am not lying
Except for what I just said
And what I’ll say next

***

I’ve been a liar
A lot longer than Barack
But without his gift

Leave yours in the comments!

Commentary

Which is more cruel and immoral? Waterboarding or abortion?

7 Comments

UPDATE: Hot Air reports: Sweden legalizes sex-selection abortions! Sweden, the most secular nation on the planet!

Dr. Frank Turek has a post here, examining whether pro-abortion Democrats are inconsistent for calling waterboarding torture, when the procedures used to kill the unborn can be far more cruel and painful. Turek is a former naval fighter pilot (8 years served), who served in the Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf.

Turek actually was waterboarded as art of his SERE training, in case of capture and interrogation. He’s now a full time Christian debater, and he now debates people like Christopher Hitchens. Christianity is definitely a step up in terms of excitement and danger from his previous job, where I imagine he spent time on dull chores such as landing on pitching carrier decks at night, dodging SAMs and triple-A, etc.

He writes:

Now, despite decades of its use on American service members, President Obama declares that waterboarding is torture when used on terrorists.  Is it?  Reasonable people cannot disagree whether scalding a person’s skin, dismembering him, or beheading him constitutes torture.  Those are undeniably torturous acts that our enemies have inflicted on Americans.  But since waterboarding leaves no permanent physical damage, reasonable people can disagree over whether or not it’s actually torture and should be used on terrorists.

He then goes on to talk about whether the Democrats are being inconsistent on what counts as torture.

Despite being against waterboarding, President Obama does not seem to think that scalding, dismembering, or beheading is torture in all circumstances.  In some circumstances, the President actually approves of such treatment, so much so that he is now exporting it to other countries with our tax dollars.  He’s even thinking of forcing certain Americans to inflict it on the innocent.

In fact, the President along with most in his party and some in the Republican Party, think that such brutality is a Constitutional right, which they cleverly disguise with the word “choice.”  Choice in these circumstances actually means scalding, dismembering, or de-braining a living human being—which is literally what saline, D&C, and partial birth abortions respectively accomplish.

I won’t give the whole article away, but you must read it. I don’t link to Turek a lot, but this is awesome.

Further study