“Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.” Chesterton

Featured Posts

Creative Minority Reader
Today on CMR —

The Upside of Zika

There are some who seem pretty thrilled with the outbreak of Zika because it's given new life to the anti-life crowd. The somewhat new virus has reinvigorated the tired old arguments against the Catholic Church's teaching on life and sexuality.

According to the Center for Disease Control, the Zika virus is spread through mosquito bites with he most common symptoms including fever, rash, joint pain, and conjunctivitis which typically lasts several days to a week. The illness is usually mild with symptoms lasting from several days to a week. However, some reports link the disease with birth defects and some governments in South America have warned women at risk of contacting the Zika virus from becoming pregnant. The threat of very ill babies has ramped up efforts to liberalize abortion laws and has many criticizing the Catholic Church for their belief that all life is sacred.

Please continue reading at The National Catholic Register>>>


Awesome. Pro-Lifers Bought an Abortion Clinic

This is pretty awesome. Kudos to these pro-lifers. The Washington Post doesn't seem very happy about it but hey, when are they happy with anything pro-lifers do.

Pat Lohman owned a crisis pregnancy center right next door to an abortion clinic. But then it gets so much better.

Never mind that the writer obviously hates Lohman. Actually, that just adds to the awesomeness:

Here’s the part that’s really astonishing. Several months ago, the abortion provider retired and the Amethyst Women’s Health Center closed. That’s when Lohman, 69, and her supporters swooped in, orchestrating their grandest deception yet.

Nothing indicates that the abortion clinic is closed, except a locked door. The clinic’s Google ads still pop up and the phone number still works. When women dial the closed abortion clinic, the call is forwarded straight to the pregnancy center. Everything remains in place to lure women to the clinic and hope they try the door, figure they made a mistake, then go right next door to the carefully named A-A-A Women for Choice.

How did Lohman pull it off?

I talked to the doctor ran the abortion clinic for 27 years, first with her husband, then alone after he died. She’s a 76-year-old widow with an NRA sticker on the clinic window and a gun she’s had ready for decades after being threatened by abortion protesters at her home. She doesn’t want to be in the news anymore and asked that I not use her name.

But when we talked, she told me that she sold her practice when she retired. She never met the new owners, only the lawyers who said they represented a group of medical office investors. The investors also bought a dialysis office in the same, unremarkable medical office park, they told her.

Just five minutes after signing the final papers at closing, the doctor called her office to check her messages.

“Triple A Women for Choice,” a voice answered.

The doctor thought she made a mistake and redialed.

“Triple A Women for Choice,” the voice said again.

Whoever bought her practice had the phones forwarded to the pregnancy center within minutes of the sale, before the lawyers even had a chance to close their briefcases.

The retired doctor said she doesn’t believe an outright fraud happened. She said it was an omission of information.

“If I were 20 years younger, I wouldn’t have retired, and this wouldn’t have happened,” she told me. “But I am tired. And right now, I don’t want to stir things up.”

According to property records, the new owners bought the place for $360,000 on Sept. 29, 2015. It now belongs to BVM Foundation — the Indiana-based Blessed Virgin Mary Foundation. Calls to BVM Foundation, and its listed officers were not returned.
But doesn't that just sum it up. So many of your die-hard pro-aborts are getting old and they're faced with a reinvigorated effort to protect life. They're just not up to it.

Love this story.


So is Conservatism or Likeability More Important?

Ronald Reagan won and changed history. Dude rocked. And now the GOP is left trying to recreate his electoral victories. But I don't think the GOP can decide why Reagan won. Was it because he was likeable, optimistic, and witty or was it because he was conservative.

That's the question. If it's likeable, optimistic and witty we're looking for, Marco Rubio might be the guy. If it's conservative, it's Ted Cruz. The problem is that Cruz isn't all that likeable. C'mon. Don't fool yourself. He's just not. That long droning and screeching speech he gave the night of his Iowa win was just plain awkward. Look, I agree with most of what comes out of the guy's mouth but is he likeable and media savvy? Not so much.

Now Rubio on the other hand is likeable and media savvy but the conservative base doesn't trust him and likely won't come out for him like they'd need to in order to beat Hillary. After immigration, they just won't trust him.

So we're left wondering what's more important as an electoral strategy. Is Rubio attracting the moderates going to get the GOP ahead or is Cruz firing up conservatives going to get us across the finish line. You're not going to get both in this cycle. One or the other. In recent years we went with candidates who weren't all that likeable and not very conservative (McCain and Romney).

Both Cruz and Rubio are good on issues of life and religious freedom, which I think are the two most important issues this cycle. I probably trust Cruz to push harder on these issues than Rubio. But to be fair, it's exactly that hard charging attitude that makes him not appealing to moderates.

This is not a side question. It's THE question. Look, the number of folks in Iowa caucusing for Republicans shattered records while the number of Dems caucusing in Iowa was abysmal. Maybe this is the kind of year where you just drive out your base and hope that the excitement gap on the Dem side helps the GOP.

I don't know the answer. I'm just a blogger.


New Vid: Planned Parenthood Admits Accounting Gimmicks Hide Baby Parts Sales

Wait. Planned Parenthood was lying?! Who saw this coming?

A new video at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast and newly-released documents from a Texas Public Information Act request show how Planned Parenthood used accounting gimmicks to hide its illegal sale of fetal tissue, according to CMP.

Check out the Center for Medical Progress.

*subhead*Put Your Blurb Here.*subhead*

High Court to Hear Arguments in Thomas Aquinas College and Little Sisters against HHS Mandate

I personally have given up all hope that anything good will ever come out of the U.S. Supreme Court but for those of you who have not killed the last glimmer of hope with steel teethed reality shards, this could be a big day.

I'm in a mood, I guess.

Life and religious freedom are the two BIG ISSUES that America will be deciding in the near future. The justices on the other side of this issue will stop at nothing to win and some of the justices on my side of the issue want to be liked and respected by those on the other side of the issue. So yeah, doom.

Attorneys from the Jones Day law firm, which is representing Thomas Aquinas College in its legal challenge of the HHS contraceptive mandate, report that the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the case on the morning of March 23.

Last November the Court announced that it would hear seven cases filed by religious organizations in opposition to the mandate, which compels them to facilitate free contraceptive, abortifacient, and sterilization coverage for their employees. The College’s case is among those seven, which the Court has consolidated into a single case, Zubik v. Burwell, and which also includes the case brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor. In January the College’s attorneys submitted a legal brief outlining their arguments to the Court.

At the March 23 hearing, the Court’s nine justices will question attorneys representing the College, other plaintiffs, and the government about the case. A decision in the case is expected before the end of the high court’s session in June.

“We eagerly await our day in court,” says college president Dr. Michael F. McLean, “and hope very much that we will prevail, certainly for the good of Thomas Aquinas College, but also for all institutions and citizens of faith. For the outcome of Zubik vs. Burwell will determine whether or not American citizens of all faiths can be compelled by the federal government to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. This is a watershed moment for our country.”

HT Thomas Aquinas College

Columnist Changes his Mind on Christians Being Forced to Take Part in Gay Marriages

A gay marriage supporting columnist who applauded the decision of a Balfast court to fine a Christian baker for refusing to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage message, has changed his mind. He hasn't changed his mind on gay marriage, mind you but just about the religious freedom issues.

In the next few years, many precedents will be set on this issue of religious freedom and it's important we win these cases. Arguments like this can change minds. As Christians, I know we're trying to win hearts and minds and souls. But for now, we must focus on minds.

The Guardian:

Ashers’ religious justifications are, to my mind, theologically unsound. Nevertheless, on reflection the court was wrong to penalise Ashers and I was wrong to endorse its decision.

The law suit against the bakery was well-intended. It sought to challenge homophobia. But it was a step too far. It pains me to say this, as a long-time supporter of the struggle for LGBT equality in Northern Ireland, where same-sex marriage and gay blood donors remain banned. The equality laws are intended to protect people against discrimination. A business providing a public service has a legal duty to do so without discrimination based on race, gender, faith and sexuality.

However, the court erred by ruling that Lee was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and political opinions.

The Ashers verdict could encourage far-right extremists to demand the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions

His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order. Despite this, Judge Isobel Brownlie said that refusing the pro-gay marriage slogan was unlawful indirect sexual orientation discrimination. On the question of political discrimination, the judge said Ashers had denied Lee service based on his request for a message supporting same-sex marriage. She noted: “If the plaintiff had ordered a cake with the words ‘support marriage’ or ‘support heterosexual marriage’ I have no doubt that such a cake would have been provided.” Brownlie thus concluded that by refusing to provide a cake with a pro-gay marriage wording Ashers had treated him less favourably, contrary to the law.

This finding of political discrimination against Lee sets a worrying precedent. Northern Ireland’s laws against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion were framed in the context of decades of conflict. They were designed to heal the sectarian divide by preventing the denial of jobs, housing and services to people because of their politics. There was never an intention that this law should compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed.

The judge concluded that service providers are required to facilitate any “lawful” message, even if they have a conscientious objection. This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages.

In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas.

*subhead*Hearts and minds.*subhead*

Down Goes Trump

Good News. Trump came in second tonight. I just don't trust the guy at all. I shudder to imagine the kind of Supreme Court justice Trump would nominate. I'm not counting him out but this has got to hurt.

The news was a little weird. I did not see one mention of the fact that the winner of the Iowa on the Republican side is Hispanic. I seem to remember it was mentioned once or twice when Obama, an African-American, won some primaries. At least once or twice, right? (yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

Interesting thing about Cruz is that he won Iowa while opposing ethanol mandates. Seems to me a guy who goes to Iowa opposing ethanol mandates is a guy who won't have a problem standing up for life and religious freedom in the face of media criticism.


Heh. Trump Tries to Put Money on Communion Plate

No words. Just no words do this insanity justice.

The New York Post:

In a show of solidarity with the evangelical Christians who dominate the GOP caucuses, Donald Trump began the day at a nondenominational church in Council Bluffs with his wife, Melania.

Melania Trump took Communion from a silver tray, but Trump thought it was a collection plate and reached into his pocket to donate before realizing his mistake.

“I thought it was for offering,” he said later with a laugh.
I feel like the entire nation is being punk'd.


What on Earth Does "Fell Pregnant" Mean Anyway?

OK. This term confuses me. I'm reading an article about a barmaid who was fired for being pregnant and the article said:

Barmaid who fell pregnant told to leave before becoming 'fat and wobbly'

Bar manager who fell unexpectedly pregnant was told by bosses she would have to go before she became 'fat and wobbly'
What on earth could that mean? Fell? Did she fall into a bed where a man was unexpectedly lying? I'm sure it means unexpectedly pregnant but they make it like it's catching a disease in which they had no part.


The Amazing History Behind the Very Christian Plaque at Mount Rushmore

The story behind a plaque at Mount Rushmore explaining the history of the United States of America with quite a Christian flavor would probably surprise many people.

President Calvin Coolidge met the artist Gutzon Borglum who prompted him to dedicate the site for a carving of four president's busts in the 1920's. Coolidge helped to raise funds and was even present as the cornerstone was laid and said, “We have come here to dedicate a cornerstone laid by the hand of the Almighty. …The union of these four presidents carved on the face of the everlasting Black Hills of South Dakota … will be distinctly American in its conception, in its magnitude, in its meaning."

Borglum, in turn, asked that Coolidge himself write the inscription that would accompany the portraits on Rushmore. You see he didn't want a group of heads in a mountain without an explanation. He feared that without an "entablature," generations in the future wouldn't understand their importance, much like Stonehenge or the rock faces of Easter Island. The words were supposed to appear writ large right next to the presidents' heads.

A law was passed partly funding the project and stating that Coolidge would write the inscription that would "endure for 5,000 centuries."

Please continue reading at The National Catholic Register>>>

HT Kai's Coolidge Blog