Liberal denial threatens civilization

That title isn't mine, but the title of a piece written by a liberal about liberals.

While I obviously don't agree with this liberal on much, he does point out an important truth--one that I and many, many other people have been trying to point out since 911 and before.

...my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world - specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith...despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism

The writer, Sam Harris, points out that the evidence is overwhelming that many in Islamic culture are bent on the destruction of those in the West, those who are not Muslims (and almost all of the remaining Muslims are silent before the barbarism of some in their number).

Harris also points out that the wacko conspiracy theories provide a window of insight into what is wrong with the Left, giving us a

view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

He concludes:

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement. It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

I agree--totally. Liberals need to pull their heads out of the sand long enough to get a good dose of reality. It's one thing to spend all day fantasizing about some Marxist utopia...it's quite another to play in a fantasy world of peace and love while the enemy is at the gate.

Ideology-Driven OB-GYN Group Blasts Abortion Ban

From the Rapid City Journal today:

The organization is particularly critical of the lack of exceptions for victims of rape and incest

So why is a medical group upset over the "lack of exceptions" for rape/incest victims? Their purview should be the medical. Perhaps they're letting a little ideology slip through, hm?

The article does quote one of their ideologically-driven doctors on the subject of medicine itself, their area of purview:

"This bill permits abortions only when intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. The problem is, medicine is never black and white."

So is that a black and white statement that nothing is black and white, or is it only sometimes that everything is black and white, or is nothing ever sometimes black and white (?) ?

Dr. Don Oliver, a Rapid City pediatrician, has no trouble seeing through the haze of liberal ideology to understand the sacred duty of doctors to preserve life, not end it:

Dr. Don Oliver, a Rapid City pediatrician and board member of the VoteYesForLife.com coalition, said his concern on this issue is that ACOG has "lost its moral compass and succumbed to the pressures of society" rather than trying to protect the lives of both patients involved in a pregnancy.

"Obstetricians have always taken responsibility for two patients: mother and unborn child," Oliver said. "And their duty was to protect the lives of both. This is a sacred duty that they ought to adhere to."

Abortion is rarely performed for medical reasons or because of a lethal birth defect, Oliver said. Even when a seriously impaired child is born dead or dies shortly after birth, most parents find something in the experience to cherish, he said.

And other children with birth defects may go on to live meaningful lives, he said.

"I've spent a lifetime caring for infants with some of these types of defects and other less severe ones," Oliver said. "In none of these cases have I ever come across a mother who didn't treasure something in their child's life."

Regarding rape and incest, Oliver said Plan B emergency contraception is more readily available than opponents of the ban will admit, even in Catholic hospitals throughout the state. About one in 300 rapes results in pregnancy, and studies show that most rape victims don't have an abortion and are happy with their decision, Oliver said.

"Many of those who have one regret it later," he said.

More Informatin is "Dangerous"...to Pro-Abortionists

I have a post at the VoteYesForLife.com blog today about a wacky new report from pro-abortionists in England who think 3D ultrasound is "dangerous."

If radical pro-abortionists consider brain power a prerequisit for deserving life, what does that bode for ultra-Leftists who couldn't form a logically coherent thought if they had to?

Todd Epp Blog Post Full of Lies and Deception

Todd Epp is stating or repeating lies about Amendment C.

The post seems to imply that Jon Hoadley, who is leading the effort to derail South Dakota's marriage protection amendment, isn't a homosexual. I guess I don't know for sure that he is, but consider the following:


- He has founded several chapters of Stonewall Democrats, a homosexual organization

- He makes reference to "thousands of gay and lesbian citizens across the state" and how "we are coming together"

- In another piece, he says "we hear the voices of those in our group...the gay, white, upper class, traditionally gendered men can now be out at work...Yep. We've made it." He also says " the drag queens...paved the way for our sexual freedom. If it weren't for the people that couldn't hide their gender, we never would have had the option of openly seeking same-gender relationships...Now if you'd excuse me, I see a pair of gold eyelashes with my name all over them"

- He was guest speaker at a "Queer Guide to Political Activity" event in 2005


His "lifestyle" seem to be little in question to me. If Hoadley is indeed a modern homosexual, he would normally be proud of the fact, so I don't understand why Epp would want to imply that Hoadley isn't.

Epp also implies the homosexual lifestyle is completely "normal, natural and healthy," even though the evidence is overwhelming that homosexuality is a practice riven with health hazards (STDs, AIDS, injuries common to doing things with your body that it was never meant to do, depression, substance abuse, suicide).

Some studies have found that homosexuality takes at least 20 years off your lifespan. The lifespan of the average practicing homosexual is somewhere in the low 40s.

Epp also says

As Jon pointed out, domestic partners have lost health care coverage in Michigan under a similar law and single people have lost domestic abuse protections under a similar Ohio law.

But this is yet another lie being put forward by those who want to scare people who would otherwise have the good sense to vote to protect marriage from homosexual activists and activist judges.

The truth is, after Michigan passed their marriage protection amendment, their was a legal case to determine whether government employees (i.e. those paid by the taxpayers) could receive domestic partner benefits. A Michigan judge ruled last year that domestic partner benefits are "benefits of employment, not benefits of marriage."

The Ohio case is also a red herring. Ohio, where the laws are different than in South Dakota, has two cases dealing with the marriage protection amendment and domestic violence laws. One has been upheld that the marriage protection amendment in no way effects domestic violence protection, and the other is still in the appeal process. And even if they did lose domestic violence law protection, simple assault is still illegal, and restraining orders are available to anyone, regardless of domestic status or lack thereof.

In any case, South Dakota's law regarding domestic violence, SDCL 25-10-1 is different than that of Ohio. It is very broad, only requiring that at some point the victim and perpetrator have "lived together." No requirement for actual marriage is stated anywhere in the law.

Amendment C will have no effect whatsoever on existing laws, rights or privilieges. It will only preserve and maintain the definition of marriage as it has always been.

How pathetic that the Left feels it has to resort to lies and deception just to have a hope of winning at the ballot box.

Divisiveness in the Eye of the Beholder

Ramesh Ponnuru's National Review piece makes an astute observation of how the Left views Christian participation in the public square as he examines John Danforth's objection to "divisiveness:"

Are Christian conservatives guilty of divisiveness for campaigning to get Roe v. Wade overturned? Or are they responding legitimately to liberals' divisive campaign to get the courts to impose an extreme version of the abortion policy they favor? Danforth tends to divide the American political world into "Christian conservatives" and "moderates" (liberals barely appear in his book), with the former portrayed as divisive and the latter as reconcilers. But that set of categories is itself divisive, as categories tend to be.

This is a common, historical-revisionist claim from the Left these days. When people work to maintain or restore traditional values in South Dakota or the U.S., the Left charges we are being "divisive." Actually, it is they who are being divisive, as they are trying to subvert the moral foundations of our great country, trying to change what has worked well and made us a great civilization in exchange for some crazy new Marxist social engineering scheme.

Danforth's own policy views put him in a quandary. He was an anti-abortion senator, and he remains opposed to same-sex marriage. But he favors research that kills human embryos, opposes a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, and disdains public displays of religion. He wants to cast the people to his right as theocratic.

Another position of the Left is that, if you must have these primitive religious convictions in the first place, at least keep them to yourself so that they are completely irrelevant to real life. Their position is that religious values should have no bearing on what we do in the "real world." And if you should happen to proffer both faith-based rationale AND "real-world" scientific reasons for a particular position, well, anything scientific you might have to say is automatically invalidated because you're a "Bible thumper." In other words, the Left advocates that only the end of your nose should guide you in public.