Brian Clowes

Opening the Gates wide to population control abuse

Brian Clowes
By Brian Clowes
Image

October 1, 2012 (The Wanderer) - In July 1912, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes and other leaders in the early race-cleansing eugenics movement held their first international conference in London. Among the leading topics of discussion were how to stop poor and “unfit” African women from breeding.

Exactly 100 years later, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the British Government sponsored the Summit on Family Planning in the same city. This is most likely a coincidence, but the irony is stunning. The objective of the Summit on Family Planning was to raise enough money to “provide 120 million women in the world’s poorest countries with access to contraceptives by 2020,” with a heavy emphasis on Africa. Atop the list of the Gates Foundation’s partners were ― you guessed it ― International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International, the two largest abortion providers in the world, back to finish the work their founders had started a century before.

According to the Summit’s “Summary of Commitments,” getting this many women on birth control will require an additional $4.3 billion over the next eight years, one-fourth of which will be donated by the Gates Foundation.

The Summit was headlined by Prime Minister David Cameron, President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania and Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland. It was heralded by many as “A rebirth of family planning,” as if the entire international development industry had not spent the last two decades devising ever-more-aggressive but friendlier-sounding ways to stop Africans, Asians and Latinos from having children. Indeed, the so-called “developed” nations have poured one hundred billion dollars into population control in the Southern Hemisphere since 1995.1

Eighteen of the 24 nations represented at the event were African, so it not was difficult to discern the geographical emphasis of this Summit. Also present as “donors” were the dozen or so “developed” world governments that currently provide 95 percent of all population control funding.

And, of course, Big Pharma was more than adequately represented. Participants such as Bayer, Cipla, Helm, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Pfizer stand to gain billions annually should 120 million more women be hooked on their products.

Although the more honest language of “population control” is no longer in vogue, the same old disinformation and outright propaganda was the order of the day. For example, the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood, a “supporting organization” for the Summit, distributed its grandly titled “Atlas of Birth” graphic, in which it claimed, without a trace of ironic awareness, that “Access to family planning massively boosts women’s chances of surviving pregnancy,” and compares the UK’s maternal mortality rate of 12 per 100,000 live births (where contraceptive prevalence is 86%) and the MMR in Chad, which is one hundred times higher at 1,200 per 100,000 (and which has a contraceptive prevalence of only 3%).

White Ribbon Alliance is implying, of course, that all we have to do is flood Chad (and the rest of Africa) with contraception, and the MMR will miraculously plunge. This simplistic and very dangerous assumption will cost many more lives than it saves, because it entirely neglects far more effective maternal lifesaving measures ― such as prenatal care, attended childbirth in a clean environment and surgical care for obstetric complications.

In fact, the dangers posed by the Summit are so extreme that many population control groups (including the Center for Reproductive Rights, which never met an abortion it didn’t like) issued a warning before the Summit. The “Civil Society Declaration” condemns “Policies that accept or tacitly condone forced sterilization [and] the coercive provision of contraceptives. … Any return to coercive family planning programs where quality of care and informed consent are ignored would be both shocking and retrograde.”2

One certainly does not want to be perceived as “retrograde,” but these groups have good reason to be concerned. The co-sponsor of the London Summit on Family Planning was the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DfID). This government agency contributed $261.4 million to India’s most recent forced sterilization program. This type of quota- and bounty-based population program inevitably leads to gross and widespread human rights violations. Many Indian women were rounded up and sterilized without their knowledge or consent. Bribery and threats were routine; women were offered $11 and a sari if they were sterilized, or were entered in a lottery where one woman out of thousands sterilized might have won a car, which she could not have afforded to drive anyway. NGO workers who convinced women to have sterilizations received a cash bounty, so the program was ripe for abuse and corruption, as all such programs are.3

One DfID-funded doctor did 53 sterilizations in just two hours by flashlight and botched all 53 procedures, leaving women to lie in agony on a filthy straw-covered floor. He did not even sterilize his instruments between operations, because he was in such a rush to collect as much bounty money as he could.

A 2010 DFID report said that the purpose of its programs was to reduce greenhouse emissions. Since DfID knew that its money would go towards funding forced sterilizations under filthy conditions, we can properly conclude that the agency considers environmental issues more important than the most fundamental rights of poor Indian women.4

Knowing this, the Gates Foundation motto “All Lives have Equal Value” rings a bit hollow.

Another partner of the London Summit was Marie Stopes International (MSI), which makes Planned Parenthood look like a bunch of underachievers by comparison. MSI peddles pornographic posters and movies for public consumption in Great Britain and has admitted to committing illegal abortions all over the world.5 MSI is especially active in Africa, and women commonly refer to illegal abortions as the “Marie Stopes procedure.” Workers at the MSI center in Tororo, Uganda, testified that it did many illegal abortions and also injected women with Depo-Provera shots, telling them that they were malaria treatments.6 In July of this year, the government of Zambia expelled Marie Stopes International for committing hundreds of illegal abortions over a period of just five months.7

Melinda Gates takes the well-worn road that so many other lapsed Catholics have trod by claiming that “The [Gates] foundation doesn’t take a position on abortion.”8 This is like someone saying that they don’t take a position on racism while contributing millions of dollars to the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan National Alliance.

The Gates Foundation has donated more than one billion dollars to the most virulent pro-abortion groups in the worlds specifically for “family planning” activities.9 These include the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has lavishly praised the Chinese forced-abortion program and has actually helped to implement it; CARE International, which is pushing hard to legalize abortion in several African nations; Pathfinder International, which has been doing illegal “menstrual extraction” abortions in many nations for decades; and, of course, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which does more to push abortion all over the world than any other organization on Earth.

The most persuasive propaganda in support of the London Summit on Family Planning was provided by Melinda Gates herself, who said, “When I travel and talk to women around the world they tell me that access to contraceptives can often be the difference between life and death. Today is about listening to their voices, about meeting their aspirations, and giving them the power to create a better life for themselves and their families.”10

These encounters were obviously carefully choreographed photo ops with African women who all obediently parroted the “we must have contraception!” line they had been fed by the Gates advance teams. It seems very odd that, of all the women quoted by Melinda Gates, not a single one spoke of the need for prenatal care, delivery in a safe and clean environment and surgical treatment for obstetric problems—measures that would save many more lives in the long run.

While preparing for her carefully-planned gala Summit, Melinda Gates entirely ignored the voices of those women who disagreed with her goal of flooding the world with birth control.

One of these was a Nigerian mother who said in an open letter to Melinda Gates:

With her incredible wealth she wants to replace the legacy of an African woman (which is her child) with the legacy of child-free sex. … Even at a glance, anyone could see that the unlimited and easy availability of contraceptives in Africa would surely increase infidelity and sexual promiscuity as sex is presented by this multi-billion dollar project as a casual pleasure sport that can indeed come with no strings ― or babies ― attached. … I see this $4.6 billion buying us misery. I see it buying us unfaithful husbands. I see it buying us streets devoid of the innocent chatter of children. I see it buying us disease and untimely death. I see it buying us a retirement without the tender loving care of our children. Please, Melinda, listen to the heart-felt cry of an African woman and mercifully channel your funds to pay for what we REALLY need.

Mrs. Gates ― are you listening?


Dr. Brian Clowes is the director of education and research at Human Life International (HLI), the world’s largest international pro-life and pro-family organization. A version of this article appeared in the The Wanderer, volume 145, number 40.

Endnotes

1 United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Financial Resource Flows for Population Activities [annual reports]. Table A.1, “Primary Funds of Donor Countries for Population Assistance, by Channel of Distribution.” For complete details and calculations, see Excel spreadsheet F-18-05.XLS.

2 “Women’s Human Rights Must be at the Centre of the Family Planning Summit: Civil Society Declaration.”  http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/Civil-Society-Declaration_06_19_2012.pdf, September 17, 2012.

3 Gethin Chamberlain. “UK Aid Helps to Fund Forced Sterilisation of India’s Poor.” The Observer/The Guardian, April 14, 2012.

4 Ibid.

5 Paul Cornellisson, Marie Stopes International Program Director for South Africa, YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cf7Rg8zxds, September 17, 2012.

6 Face-to-face discussions with Brian Clowes and Father Jonathan Opio at Sacred Heart Parish in Tororo, Uganda, on December 15, 2010. One of the daughters of an HLI counselor went to MSI for malaria treatment but got a Depo-Provera shot instead without her knowing what it was. She lost her cycles for three months, and then started bleeding so heavily she had to seek hospitalization. I heard this very same story from several other women. MSI personnel have boasted about performing illegal abortions all over the world. In fact, abortion in Uganda is called the “MSP” ― the “Marie Stopes procedure.”

7 “Zambia: Gov’t ‘Aborts’ Marie Stopes.” AllAfrica.com, July 26, 2012.

8 Deborah Solomon. “Questions for Melinda Gates: The Donor.” The New York Times Magazine, October 22, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/magazine/24fob-q4-t.html, September 18, 2012.

9 “Search Awarded Grants” feature on the Gates Foundation Web site at http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grants/Pages/search.aspx.

10 Julio Godoy. “Family Planning Essential for Development.” Inter Press Service News Agency, July 18, 2012.


Advertisement
Featured Image
womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

Growing ‘Women Against Feminism’ movement draws fury

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White
Image

Critics of feminism have long said that it is entering the final stages of its long career, with more of its assertions about the nature of human sexual and social relations being contradicted by the evidence and fewer young people following its dictates every decade. But in the last few weeks, it seems that feminism’s last gasp is being used to direct insults at young women who are lining up to publicly reject and ridicule it.

The Tumblr site Women Against Feminism has started a social networking trend in which thousands of young women photograph themselves holding signs bluntly denouncing feminism, giving a sharp indication that the feminist brand has become poison to young, hip, and internet-savvy women.

Mainstream and journalistic feminists have lashed out at the site and its followers, entering into an online spat over the increasingly popular photos. The signs say, “I am not a victim,” and “This is what an anti-feminist looks like.”

They continue: “I am an adult who is capable of taking responsibility for myself and my actions. I define myself and derive my value by my own standards. I don’t need to be ‘empowered’. I am not a target for violence and there is no war against me. I respect me and I refuse to demonize them and blame them for my problems.”

The messages held by the women pinpoint with pithy and acerbic precision exactly the reasons given by many critics that the movement has lost favour with young people. They call it a creed of double standards that promotes victimhood and endorses bullying of anyone who critiques it.

The site’s explanatory page, which was taken down for unknown reasons in the last two days, said, “Feminists are the only people who lose their minds with rage when you tell them that women already have the same exact rights as men. That’s not good enough. They want more. They desperately want to be victims. They want a privileged social position.”

The author goes on to accuse feminism in general of systematic censorship, discrimination, elitism and “policing other women” who do not toe the line – as well as baseline misandry. The anonymous creator denounced feminism’s adoption of “abortion as ‘empowerment’”:

This opinion is unpopular, but I don’t agree that I need to have my baby scraped out of my uterus in order to feel empowered. But the abortion industry (i.e. Planned Parenthood) makes a ton of money off this perversion of empowerment. ‘Abortion as empowerment’ teaches women to see their wombs as nothing but garbage bins full of disposable waste.

One of the contributors wrote, “I don’t need feminism because my self-worth is not directly tied to my victim complex. As a woman in the western world I am not oppressed, and neither are you,” says one. Another: “I don’t need feminism because I don’t need to bully someone to share my opinions with others.”

Some come right out and say that feminism promotes exactly the evils it purports to fight against: “I don’t need feminism because I believe in equality, not entitlements and supremacy.”

Although the site and its contentious photos have been running around the internet for many months, arguments among journalism’s feminists started breaking out this week after a mocking Buzzfeed feature helped the site gain momentum on social media outlets.

Some feminist journalists simply flung insults. Lillian Kalish sniffed on Ryot, “These Women Who Think They Don’t Need Feminism Don’t Know What Feminism Is.” “Did these posters ever think to look up the actual definition of feminism?”

Nuala McKeever, in the Belfast Telegraph, called the women posting the photos “silly, ignorant, vacuous wee girls with absolutely no thoughts beyond their own self-absorbed inanities.”

Time Magazine’s Sarah Miller said, “I Really, Truly, Fully Hate ‘Women Against Feminism’—But…” Miller wrote, “[T]he tendency to see sexism everywhere is proof that feminism is healthy and vigilant, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, because misogyny is insidious and rampant… We need feminism.”

But Miller added, “Still, the pain that we experience as women—even physical—does not give us the right to tell people there’s one way to think or feel, or to assume that we have some god-like understanding of everyone’s motivations.”

Cathy Young, however, responded in Time, saying, “Stop Fem-Splaining: What ‘Women Against Feminism’ Gets Right.” She writes, “The charge that feminism stereotypes men as predators while reducing women to helpless victims certainly doesn’t apply to all feminists—but it’s a reasonably fair description of a large, influential, highly visible segment of modern feminism.”

The site, Young says, “raises valid questions about the state of Western feminism in the 21st Century — questions that must be addressed if we are to continue making progress toward real gender equality.”

Sarah Boesveld wrote in the National Post on Friday that the site shows that feminism has become “complicated” and “sometimes alienating.” She quotes an email sent to the paper by 22 year-old Australian Lisa Sandford, who “believes in equality for the sexes” but firmly rejects feminism as “rude and nasty” and intends to be a stay-at-home mother. 

Sandford wrote, “If feminism really accepted equality, they would not tell me my views are wrong, they would accept it and let me be.”

Browse the 'Women Against Feminism' archives here (warning: occasional strong language).


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Steven W. Mosher and Anne Roback Morse

,

Welcome Baby Filipino 100 Million!

Steven W. Mosher and Anne Roback Morse
By Steven W. Mosher and Anne Roback Morse

Population Research Institute welcomes the birth of little Chonalyn Sentino. Baby Chonalyn was born this past Sunday to parents Clemente and Dailin, and was feted in the Philippines as “Baby 100 Million.” PRI welcomes Baby Chonalyn as well, saying that she will be a blessing to her family, her community, and her nation.

The Philippines is one of the largest Catholic countries in the world, and its people value children. For this reason, it has been a target of the population controllers for decades. It was one of the countries singled out by Henry Kissinger’s National Security Council in 1974 for special “attention” and, more recently, has been bullied by the Obama administration into passing its first population control law. 

The bill, which was touted as being all about promoting “reproductive health,” was actually intended to drive down the birth rate. For example, section 15 requires that all couples receive a “Certificate of Compliance” from the local Family Planning Office before becoming eligible for a marriage license.

Some in the Philippines are decrying Chonalyn’s birth, repeating USAID’s talking points about the “dangers” of overpopulation. They welcome Chonalyn as an individual little girl, while simultaneously calling for future little girls and boys to be removed from existence.

The Philippine Star wrote that the birth symbolized a “large population that will put a strain on the country's limited resources.” Another paper cited the executive director of the official Commission on Population who bluntly said “We'd like to push the fertility rate down to two children per (woman's) lifetime.” And the Global Post cited “concerned advocates” who thought the current population was not a “complement with the country's economic growth.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

But many other Filipinos aren’t buying into the anti-people hysteria. Francisco Antonio, a Filipino Chemical Engineering graduate student at Yale, adamantly rebutted the notion that there are too many Filipinos, saying: “I celebrate life because population control is defeatism disguised as pragmatism. And because human creativity holds more potential for protecting this planet and its inhabitants than any other resource I know of.”

A Filipina currently living in California told PRI that she welcomed the transition of her country to 100 million persons: “Filipinos are not a burden to the world population, because we not only care for our own but also for others in the world. One of the greatest and most sought after exports of the Philippines is our skilled, motivated, and exemplary workforce. And these workers tirelessly cultivate their family and community abroad and in the Philippines. We are a very social and civic minded people. We care and share because it is part of our culture and we do it with a smile.”

 Ed, a Filipino accountant, also celebrated the birth of Baby Chonalyn: “The typical Filipino does not associate a baby with ‘cost’ or ‘expense’ but rather as a ‘blessing’ and a ‘gift.’ This is because Filipinos recognize that true happiness does not come from the accumulation of material wealth or prestige, but rather, from true, genuine, and strong relationships with other people. [Filipinos] value life, not because the Church says or the Pope says so, but because they recognize it to be true. And the truth about the value of life, will continue to shine, long after the debates are over.”

It goes without saying that we at the Population Research Institute also welcome Chonalyn’s birth. We need more Filipinos, not fewer. 

Reprinted with permission from Pop.org.


Advertisement
Featured Image
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

,

Two very different ways to respond to Pope Francis’ unrecorded interviews

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

In the last few weeks another series of interviews with Pope Francis surfaced and have again left many Catholics scratching their heads.  Headlines all over the world had the Pope saying that two percent of priests are pedophiles, but is that what he said?  Even though the Vatican spokesman did issue a clarification, that question and others remain unanswered.

Critical reactions to these interviews have been interesting not even so much for their contents as from whom they arise.  These are the observations of some of the most faithful Catholic Church watchers today.  The folks pointing out these concerns are not, as many would assume, ‘“far right-wing-holier-than-the-Pope” types, but mainstream Catholics known for their loyalty to Pope Francis.

Phillip Lawler is the founder of Catholic World News, the first Catholic news service operating on the Internet. In part of his criticism of the most recent interview, he states: “Why was Pope Francis speaking with Scalfari without having first established clear ground rules for the conversation—rules that would certainly include recording and verification of any quotes?”

(To comprehend the situation accurately it is necessary to have an understanding of the man whom the Pope has allowed to interview him.  Eugenio Scalfari is relatively unknown in the West even after the fanfare of his papal interviews. LifeSiteNews has produced this piece to assist that understanding.)

Lawler recalls: “Back in October the Vatican had been embarrassed by an ‘interview’ in which [Scalfari’s] reconstructed quotes caused an uproar, and the Vatican press office was forced to issue an awkward ‘clarification’ which only added to the confusion.”

In addition to that clarification of the October Scalfari interview, the confusion and uproar got so bad that the Vatican removed the interview from their website, where they had it posted in the section containing the Pope’s speeches. Interestingly, that interview resurfaced two weeks ago on the Vatican website only to be removed again after a new round of criticism.

A blogger at the EWTN-owned National Catholic Register offered an observation similar to Lawler’s but with a little more bite. Pat Archbold writes, “The internet is once again abuzz with the second-hand hearsay of an unrecorded Papal interview.” Archbold advises his readers with characteristic sarcasm, “So pay no attention to those crazy and outlandish anti-Catholic headlines tearing up your RSS feed.  Just ignore them and hope they will soon go away, just like unrecorded Papal interviews.”

A second unrecorded conversation with the Pope makes news

Another write-up of an encounter with Pope Francis also caused a stir.  Brian Stiller, an Evangelical leader from Toronto was part of a delegation of Evangelical Christians who met with Pope Francis earlier this month. In his July 9 account, Stiller puts in quotes this statement he attributes to the Pope: “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community.  There are so many doctrines we will never agree on. Let’s not spend our time on those. Rather, let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.”

That led noted priest-blogger Father Dwight Longenecker to first caution that the quotes are “Brian Stiller’s memory of the conversation.” 

Then with the caveat of not actually knowing the whole conversation, Fr. Longenecker says “it would not be unusual for a Catholic priest of Pope Francis’ generation to feel that way.”  He explains that he has “heard from numerous convert clergy over the years who said when they went to their local Catholic priest and expressed the wish to become Catholic the priest told them it wasn’t necessary and that they could do much more good to Christ’s kingdom and the Catholic church by staying where they were and evangelizing within their own denomination.”

“Now this strikes me as rather troublesome on several levels,” says Longenecker. He notes he had himself once used that line with a Protestant friend, to which his friend replied, “You don’t want to convert me? Why not? I don’t have much respect for your religion if you think so little of it that you don’t want me to share it!”

“He basically called me out on what was a little lie on my part. I wanted to be nice to him [so] I said I didn’t want to convert him. He said our discussion would be much better if I admitted that I did want him to become Catholic. He was right. I did. I still do.”

Inside the Vatican

Vatican journalist Edward Pentin has reported that unnamed “Vatican officials are uneasy and perplexed” about the interview. Pentin began reporting on the Vatican as a correspondent with Vatican Radio in 2002 and has since covered the pope for a number of publications, including Newsweek and The Sunday Times.

“The officials’ discomfort also extends to the Pope’s spontaneous telephone calls to strangers, a couple of which implied he deviated from Church teaching but, being private and unrecorded conversations, are difficult to verify,” he wrote for Newsmax.

From the outset of the Francis pontificate, there were these unrecorded and yet published interviews – the first was from a meeting with Latin American religious leaders in June 2013.  That was the one that had Pope Francis speaking of the existence of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican and also about being concerned about Catholics who would count rosaries to offer prayer bouquets.

At the time LifeSiteNews published nothing on that first unrecorded interview even though almost all other news services did.  Shortly thereafter I was at the Vatican inquiring about that unrecorded but reported-on encounter and was assured by various Vatican insiders that the communication was not accidental but intended – to me at the time a rather startling revelation.

But that same assessment came later from another Vatican quarter, a man who speaks German as does the pope and also shares the pope’s religious order.  “Francis knows exactly how power is spelled,” said Bernd Hagenkord, a Jesuit who is in charge of German programming for Vatican Radio in a May interview with The Atlantic. “He’s a communicator in the league with Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. They say he’s being unclear, but we know exactly what he means.”

Two different ways to respond

One of the most disturbing outcomes of these ‘interviews’ is that the words and interpretations of what is being said by the Pope, while they may be clear for the German Jesuit, are remarkably unclear for the vast majority of Catholics.  Catholics who know well their faith, its moral teachings, and the reason for them are few and far between. They are able to discern that the Pope cannot mean to undermine Church teaching; that those teachings are unchangeable.

But most people are taken in by the media’s false interpretation that ‘who am I to judge’ involves a new acceptance of homosexuality; the false possibility for legitimately-married Catholics to divorce and remarry outside the Church and still receive Communion; the idea that the Church should quiet down on her teachings on abortion, contraception, and same-sex “marriage.”  All of those false conclusions were drawn from previous Francis interviews.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

There are two ways forward for faithful Catholics in such a situation.  One way – a way that is most tempting - was recently recognized as a growing tendency by blogger Father Ray Blake. “Most Catholics but especially clergy want to be loyal to the Pope in order to maintain the unity of the Church,” he said.  “Today that loyalty is perhaps best expressed through silence.”

In leading up to that observation, Blake noted that in the previous pontificate “there was a solidity and certainty in Benedict's teaching which made discussion possible and stimulated intellectual honesty, one knew where the Church and the Pope stood.”  He added, “Today we are in less certain times, the intellectual life of the Church is thwart with uncertainty.”

However, Vatican Cardinal Raymond Burke suggested a different approach recently. According to Burke, who serves as head of the Vatican’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, the pope has made a strategic decision to focus on making the Church appealing, and thus bishops and priests “are even more compelled to underline these teachings (on life and family) and make them clear for the faithful.”

He told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo, “The Holy Father has said on different occasions that he expects that bishops and priests are doing this teaching while he’s trying to draw people closer and not have them use [these doctrines] as their immediate excuse for not coming to the faith.”

Cardinal Burke’s strategy confronts the culture head-on even on the most difficult issues.  He sees that the often-used but failed tactic of avoiding difficult situations, of obfuscating or compromising on moral issues as worse than useless.

When truth is pushed aside for political correctness, to fulfill ideals of civility or to achieve false unity and false peace, the world is harmed by the lack of truth the Church is called to bring to it.

When truth is boldly proclaimed and held to, despite persecution, even the enemies of truth are forced to see that the opponents of their secular or liberal ideologies truly believe their teachings and are willing to suffer for them. This eventually generates a degree of respect from some of the critics and an openness to re-consider their own flawed positions.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook