Spread the love
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Free resources for homeschoolers.
  • It takes a humble person to change their perspective based on the evidence. Kudos to Kathy Ireland for seeing the truth and admitting it.
    • “My entire life I was pro-choice — who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science,” Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book “Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity.”

      “What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there.”

      However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life.

      “I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesn’t even look like a baby. Well, we’re all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesn’t suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time,” Ireland argued. “I’ve also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didn’t want to be pro-life, but this is not a woman’s rights issue but a human rights issue.”

  • Mary Ann Glendon declines an award in protest over Notre Dame’s blatant disregard for the USCCB guidelines in inviting Barrack Obama to give the commencement address.
    • Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
    • First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
    • A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

      Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

      It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

    • ” How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No. A woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.”

      –G.K. Chesterton, speaking about motherhood in What’s Wrong With the World?

  • I’d like to say this was surprising, but it isn’t. Leftest blogs frequently are insulting, degrading and threatening to any one who does not believe as they do. I find it appalling and scary that this type of hate-speech is becoming the norm in this country.
    • Although the Left is reporting her White House Correspondents’ Dinner speech as “taking shots” at Limbaugh and mocking everyone, that’s a gross misrepresentation of what turned into a hateful and disgusting diatribe.
    • I was at the dinner and I began by laughing at Sykes’s gentle teases about the press loving Obama so much they never capture him on film smoking but often seem to get him on the beach.

      It was amusing when she quipped that Obama trying so hard to be all things to all men that the next thing is he’ll be seen mowing the White House lawn.

    • But the speech took a very ugly turn when she laid into Limbaugh.

      This is what she said: “Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails, so you’re saying, ‘I hope America fails’, you’re, like, ‘I dont care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq’. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that’s treason.

      “He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight.”

      She then concluded: “Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboarding, that’s what he needs.” Obama seemed to think this bit was pretty hilarious, grinning and chuckling and turning to share the “joke” with the person sitting on his right.

      There’s not much room for differing interpretations of what Sykes said. She called Limbaugh a terrorist and a traitor, suggested that he be tortured and wished him dead.

      What was his crime? Hoping that Obama’s policies – which he views as socialist – will fail.

  • How low can Washington go? I’ve enjoyed Wanda Sykes in movies before, but I think this was uncalled for and tacky. I don’t have to watch or support celebrities that I find insulting. I guess this one just got added to that list.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)