Ben Johnson

Blogs,

10 out of 10 black children prefer Ramen noodles to death

Ben Johnson
Image

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 20, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com)—Politically motivated arguments are infuriatingly illogical, but none more so than special pleading for abortion providers.

Earlier this month, Rush Limbaugh told his that audience Roe v. Wade had “made us insensitive to killing.” 

His words took on a new prescience as the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre claimed the lives of nearly two-dozen young children – often referred to in the media simply as “babies.” 

But not everyone was convinced. His caller’s statement that abortion deserved an honorable mention in decimating the black community brought howls from the Civil Rights industry, one of the pillars of the Democratic Party with the abortion industry, labor unions, and homosexuals. Seeking to exonerate its political bedmate, the website TheRoot.com posted a 2011 speech given by Rep. Gwen Moore, D-WI, during congressional hearings to defund Planned Parenthood:

I just want to tell you what it’s like not to have Planned Parenthood ... You have to give your kids Ramen noodles at the end of the month to fill up their little bellies so they won’t cry. You have to give them mayonnaise sandwiches. They get very few fruits and vegetables, because they’re expensive. It subjects children to low educational attainment because of the ravages of poverty.

She concluded, “Planned Parenthood is healthy for women, it’s healthy for children, and it’s healthy for our society.”

Planned Parenthood is indisputably not healthy for the unborn children variously dismembered, suctioned, or given lethal injections in every one of their affiliates

Poverty, though never good, is far from the worst evil. (Wanton dismemberment of the innocent might qualify for that.)

American culture long believed overcoming the ravages of poverty or deprivation built character. School books lionized the initiative evident in Horatio Alger stories and the ingenuity of real-life figures from Abraham Lincoln to Andrew Carnegie. Before church philanthropy was replaced by government entitlements, people helped their neighbors – and a kindly parson might point out the destructive behaviors that led the recipient into his impoverished state. He would wipe away tears, give them a sense of purpose, and gently point the way to a future filled with hope.

The church might even condition its aid upon the person’s giving up vices like drinking, gambling, and being a bit too loose with his or her affections. 

Unlike certain denominations – which fund abortion with tithes – churches equipped struggling parents with the skills they needed. If necessary, a relative, a Christian family, or an order of monks or nuns, would adopt the children produced by those who could not care for them.

Generations of people grew up just this way – poor, perhaps raised by someone other than their birth parents, but determined to fulfill their potential.

People as diverse as Clarence Thomas, Steve Jobs, and Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan shared a history of overcoming abandonment, indifference, and hardship to reach the pinnacle of success.

The next generation might appreciate the same opportunity, pork ‘n’ beans notwithstanding.

Cross-posted at TheRightsWriter.com.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )



Advertisement
Featured Image

Blogs,

Clintons presided over population control plan to keep black Haitians from ‘breeding’: Left-wing website

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

March 15, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The Clinton administration enacted a population control policy in Haiti designed to stop poor black people from reproducing, according to a prominent left-wing website.

After reading an internal memo from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the authors concluded that under the Clinton administration, "the fundamental goal of the American government is to keep the natives from breeding."

Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn wrote on CounterPunch:

The June 1993 document (unearthed by Ken Silverstein in CounterPunch) states policy “targets” for Haiti baldly: to obtain 200,000 new “acceptors” of contraception; a “social marketing component” target of “6,000 cycles of pills/month,” and the establishment of 23 facilities to provide sterilizations–soothingly referred to as “voluntary surgical contraception,” a goal that has been exceeded.

There is no mention of any “targets” with regard to women’s health.

The cynicism of the “empowerment” rhetoric is also apparent in the memo’s main recommendation, the “demedicalization or liberalization of service delivery.” The agency suggests “elimination of the practice of requiring physician visits” before doling out hormonal methods.

In plainer English, this means that AID feels that doctors in Haiti need not waste time with pelvic exams or pap smears; just get the “acceptors” on stream with the hormonal method of choice.

A group calling itself the Women of Koalisyon, a Haitian women's group based in Brooklyn, said that the local population was told vasectomies were reversible and could prevent AIDS. Women were promised clothing if they agreed to be implanted with the Norplant long-acting contraceptive - and their pleas to remove the LARC fell on deaf ears.

The authors conclude that talk about women's health care and feminist motivation was merely a smokescreen for a population control agenda. "Sterilization, along with less drastic inhibitors, is far easier, particularly when it is made palatable to the liberal conscience by being tricked out in the verbal bunting of 'empowerment' and 'respect for the rights of women,'” they wrote.

While disturbing, the report dovetails with the Clintons' radical advocacy of abortion-on-demand and Democratic policies promoting long-acting reversible contraceptive use. Hillary Clinton has said she is "really in awe of" Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an outspoken advocate of race-based eugenics, for "her courage, her tenacity, her vision." In 1921, Sanger wrote, "Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems."

Follow Ben Johnson on Facebook

This report - reprinted from 1993 - is significant, because it comes from a far-Left publication. This isn't a pamphlet produced by the local Fatima apostolate; Cockburn, who died in 2012, was one of the most celebrated hard-Left authors who regularly chided liberal media personalities for not being "progressive" enough.

Put simply, Hillary Clinton's population control policies concerned those on the far-Left as much as those motivated by limited government, libertarian principles, or the Catholic Magisterium.

The article is well worth reading for the history of the population control movement going back to National Security Memorandum 200, which promotes "zero population growth" in the Third World to assure "the smooth flow of needed materials" to the United States.

But more importantly, it serves as a contemporary indictment of Hillary Clinton, who has been quick to claim credit for her husband's achievements in order to bolster her “experience” and electability. During the 1992 campaign, she told voters, "If you vote for my husband, you get me. It's a two-for-one, blue plate special." Commentators spoke of their first term as a co-presidency.

This piece raises a number of important questions as voters go to the polls today. What do Mrs. Clinton's African-American supporters think of the fact that she - and her husband, whom some styled "our first black president" - essentially presided over a population control program that allegedly used coercive and misleading means to keep blacks from reproducing?

What does this say about the Left's claim that, while conservatives emphasize economic liberty, liberals support "personal liberty" on matters like sexuality?

Should the government really be involved in doling out contraception without a doctor's examination to keep disfavored groups from multiplying?

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, would she enact policies like these again? And will she limit her population control program to people living overseas?



Advertisement
Featured Image

Blogs

Ben Carson dissects media bias with surgical precision

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

It should surprise no one that a neurosurgeon knows how to get inside people's heads. But Dr. Ben Carson executed a first-rate act of mental judo on the mainstream media last week - and one exchange deserves the attention of all pro-life and pro-family speakers who must go on television.

The controversy began Friday morning, when Politico ran a story entitled: "EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship." It came after questions arose about other, minor aspects of his biography - scrutiny that coincidentally coincided with his status as a front runner in some 2016 polls.

The details of the controversy are here, but in brief: The story claimed that Carson was forced to admit that he never applied for, and was never formally offered, a "full scholarship" to West Point, an alleged pillar of his life story. But Carson never said that he applied to West Point, only that as an ROTC officer, someone suggested Carson could be appointed to the military academy (where all scholarships are "full scholarships").

This well-placed piece of opposition research was intended to sink the candidate whose image most relies on his trustworthiness. The press conference would amount to little more than media vultures picking over the carcass of his dead candidacy.

Instead, Carson called the media out. He called the story an "outright lie," and Politico changed its headline and did a stealth edit to the story, something other media outlets criticized.

Then at the press conference Dr. Carson, the ultimate outsider, proved how unconventional he really is. Eschewing the typical antiseptic answers and brush-aside bromides that mark such crisis responses, Carson showed down reporters face-to-face.

The West Point story was "subterfuge," he said, and he was not "just going to sit back and let you be completely unfair without letting the American people know what's going on. And the American people are waking up to your game."

Then the doctor dissected media bias with surgical precision:

I do not remember this level of scrutiny for one President Barack Obama when he was running. In fact I remember just the opposite. I remember people saying, "Oh we won’t really talk about that. We won’t talk about that relationship." Well, Frank Marshall Davis? "Well, we don’t want to talk about that." Bernardine Dohrn? Bill Ayers? "Oh yeah, he didn't really know him." All the things that Jeremiah Wright was saying? "Ah, not a big problem." [He] goes to Occidental College, doesn't do all that well, somehow ends up at Columbia University. "Oh, I don't know." His records are sealed. Why are his records sealed? Why are you guys not interested in whether his records are sealed?"

It goes without saying that Dr. Carson is right. The media did everything they could to place all discussion of Obama's radical associates out-of-bounds. Frank Marshall Davis, a Marxist radical who once wrote about molesting a 13-year-old girl, acted as a surrogate father-figure to young Obama, abandoned by his radical mother to be raised by his grandparents in Hawaii.

Follow Ben Johnson on Facebook

Obama launched his political career in the living room of Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers, who also served on nonprofit boards with Obama, said in a story published on 9/11, "I don't regret setting bombs" in the Sixties. "I feel we didn't do enough."

Nine years later, Dorhn said her goals had not changed. "We are radicals today," she said. "We think that the real terrorist is the American government."

Jeremiah Wright, the race-obsessed radical Obama chose to baptize his children, believed that 9/11 was a deserved, belated response to American imperialism. "Not God bless America. God d--n America!" he bellowed. "That's in the Bible!"

Thus began a long media history of ignoring a host of political extremists inside the Obama administration or his private inner circle, including Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Craig Becker, Buffy Wicks, Anita Dunn, Marilyn Katz, and the bizarre associations the Obama administration cultivated during weekly meetings with far-Left radicals.

In fact, the media did all it could to silence any discussion of Obama's views before his election. In Obama's 2001 interview with Chicago public radio station WBEZ-FM, he said the nation needed an "activist" executive branch - one that would use the attorney general's office to force people to bow to its will. The U.S. Constitution, he said, embodies a “fundamental flaw” in the fabric of America “that continues to this day."

When asked about federal funding for abortion, Obama replied, "I think those are very important battles that have to be fought."

When the audio was released in 2008, the media aired Obama campaign spin.

Instead of exploring his views and history, The Washington Post slobbered about how "the sun glinted off [Obama's] chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games."

Yet now they examine whether Carson actually applied for a "full scholarship" or was just offered one.

This is the same tactic they use against prolife advocates, such as when CNN browbeats David Daleiden over whether the late-term abortion victim shown kicking outside the womb in a recent CMP video was shot inside a Planned Parenthood or some other abortion facility. It's an act of misdirection to take the heat off the offender and scrutinize the messenger.

Pro-lifers placed on the spot should ask why the media justified ignoring Kermit Gosnell's gruesome killing spree by calling it "local crime," or why the Big Three networks have refused to cover the last seven undercover Planned Parenthood videos.

They may ask why CNN spent more time on the source of Daleiden's footage than, say, reporting that Cecile Richards lied about whether Planned Parenthood performs mammograms - a lie she told on CNN, in fact.

Carson was right to ask, "Why are you guys not interested?" After all, these people didn't just lie to the American people; they lied to you.

The answer comes in realizing these figures didn't lie to the media; they lied with them. Together the radical Left, Democratic candidates, and the prestige media fabricate stories in order to sell the American people on the unpalatable, whether it is a lightly qualified radical windbag from Illinois or a billion-dollar corporate welfare case that makes about half its money by killing unborn children and selling their body parts.

Not everything about Dr. Carson's press conference is laudable. Carson shows a testy, less attractive side of his personality - especially when he says "Yes" five times in a row. And his suggestion that reporters "sign an affidavit" that they will end all critical coverage and start "singing my praises" is ill-advised. (Journalists won't be giving up our First Amendment rights, thank you.)

But the way he turned the tables on the biased media is well worth adopting.

Naturally, the media tried to destroy this performance, as well. Time said Carson "lashes out," and others branded it a "weird meltdown."

David Weigel of The Washington Post wrote, "Ben Carson rants at media, and it seems to be serving him well."

Holding the media accountable serves everyone well. If Ben Carson can use the same mental agility he used against biased journalists without coming off as testy, he will do well at tonight's Republican primary debate.

And if pro-lifers can do the same, they will do well when mainstream reporters force them to spend some time in the belly of the biased beast.



Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com

Blogs, ,

Victory 2015: Life, religious liberty, and truth swept last night’s elections

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

November 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Supporters of traditional values scored a sweeping victory last night as every component of their agenda won at the ballot box - including life, religious liberty, sanity on the issue of "gender identity," even recreational drug use.

HEROs often fail

Houston became the third city in recent years to repeal a transgender "civil rights" ordinance, granting members of one biological sex the right to use the restrooms, showers, and changing rooms of the opposite sex. Outspent two-to-one, Houston voted down the bathroom bill (which supporters dubbed the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, or "HERO") by a nearly two-to-one margin. In addition to upholding biological reality, the vote struck a blow for religious liberty after the city's Democratic mayor, Annise Parker, demanded that five pastors turn over their sermons for government inspection. If their religion contradicted her preferred view of the law, Parker said at the time, then their words were "fair game."

Voters last night said they wanted men out of the ladies' room and the government out of their pulpits.

Kentucky reign

The night's most striking victory belonged to Matt Bevin, the governor-elect of Kentucky. Pundits had written his political obituary after he led a Tea Party primary challenge against Mitch McConnell and lost in a 25-point blowout. Last night, Kentucky voters resurrected him from the dead.

Bevin scored a nine-point victory over his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Jack Conway, despite being outspent by more than $3 million - and that only after a last minute spending spree from national Republicans, who hadn't given him a dime until mid-October.

On election day, Bevin told the Laura Ingraham Show that he credited undercover Planned Parenthood videos and Kim Davis' imprisonment with his surge in the polls.

Conway refused to defend the state's constitutional marriage protection amendment in court - saying in part he was motivated by Pope Francis. He then ignored Davis' pleas for a religious accommodation.

"There is no question that the issue of religious freedom and same-sex marriage played a role in the results," said Mat Staver, Davis' lawyer.

Life goes on

Politicians who were said to be too extreme in their advocacy of life also won big. Phil Bryant coasted to re-election as governor of Mississippi, thanks in part to a hapless Democratic challenger who apparently won his primary by a fluke. (Think Alvin Greene.) But Bryant shares his voters' values. Last year, Bryant affirmed, "I clearly said I want to end abortion in Mississippi." Mississippians responded by saying they wanted to extend his term in office.

Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, R-Manassas, also won handily over a challenger who presented himself as more "mainstream." Democrat Bob Shaw, groused, "Bob Marshall is a part of the problem, and has spent his time in the House of Delegates focused on social issues and waging ideological, divisive, mean-spirited, and discriminatory attacks on many of the populations among us." Marshall - who was elbowed aside in two previous primaries for U.S. Senate and House as too conservative - won in a race that wasn't even close.

All three aspects of the social conservative creed - life, family, and religious liberty - were on the ballot last night, and all three won. Make that four, if you count Ohio's Issue 3, which would have legalized recreational marijuana use for anyone 21 or older. [1]

Follow Ben Johnson on Facebook

When it comes to the results of election night 2015, there's good news and there's better news. The good news is we won. The better news is, the elections had virtually nothing to do with Barack Obama.

Unlike the 2010 and 2014 midterms, which were clearly anti-Obama elections, the president was virtually absent from the political debate. These were local elections in which voters concentrated on the issues at hand and rejected gender-bending extremism, spying on clergy, Planned Parenthood, and imprisoning Christians based on conscience. That means the same issues can pave the way to victory after Obama is a painful political memory.

The other side may dismiss the results as inconsequential, a Southern anomaly that cannot be duplicated nationwide - especially with 2016's challenging calendar. But Matt Bevin won an historic election in Kentucky, where only two Republicans have served as governor in the last 50 years. Houston leans solidly Democratic, yet a group of clergy overcame a massive spending deficit to defeat a coalition of City Hall, Hillary Clinton, the ACLU, and Hollywood stars in a landslide. And they did it by standing on traditional values.

This sent shockwaves through the political and media establishment. After all, the triumph of secular progressive culture issues is supposed to be "inevitable." Last night, history struck back.

The 2015 election proves that Republicans - or Democrats, or Independents - can win and win big by standing up for the traditional values shared by their voters. Given cover by the Obama administration, the cultural Left has badly overreached.

On values, government spending, and foreign adventurism, Americans are looking for a return to normalcy, and candidates willing to provide it will benefit themselves and their country. After losing two presidential elections that gave social conservatives and Middle America no reason to vote, I hope someone at the RNC is taking notes.

Conservatives can and should take pride in the 2015 election results. But, as the Grateful Dead sang, "Every silver lining's got a touch of grey." There is also bad news from last night's election returns.

Not fade away

The bad news is that these issues are going nowhere. The radical Left never accepts defeat and meekly walks away, no matter how complete their repudiation. Nor do they trust their party to handle their issues without grassroots pressure. Only Republicans are counseled to "take a deep breath" and accept judicial tyranny as "the law of the land" - whether Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges.

Even now, the other side is preparing its next assault. The well-funded astroturf organization behind the Texas transgender ordinance, Houston Unites, issued a statement just after the election saying, "Although Houston won't yet join the 200 other cities that have similar non-discrimination measures, the fight continues. We will continue telling the stories of Houstonians whose lives would be better off because of HERO." Whether at the ballot box, in court, or by executive action, the transgender extremists intend to get their way.

Now is no time for complacency. Instead, conservatives must consolidate last night's gains by seeing to it that the politicians elected actually codify their views into law. There's no point in winning if there is no legislative fruit. The Left squeezes every ounce of state power for its own ends. Conservatives must respond by using their position to maximize freedom and traditional values.

And conservatives must do what Republicans and politicians steadfastly refuse to do: engage the culture. They must launch a sustained educational campaign about the reality of biological sex and the very real risks that unisex showers inflict, primarily on young women. They must talk about the exploitative and predatory nature of Planned Parenthood, a billion-dollar industry that rakes in profits through indifference to human suffering and a strained relationship with the law. They must defend our first freedom, the right to exercise our religion. And they must at last address the indispensable role played by the intact, natural family and the health and public safety dangers posed by its would-be replacements.

Without that, this was a temporary victory at best.

ENDNOTES:

1. Alcohol consumption is also technically illegal under the age of 21. The Ohio ballot initiative was complicated by the fact that Issue 3 would have established a state marijuana cartel of 10 farms - owned by celebrities and wealthy investors - a condition that led many people who favored cannabis legalization to vote against it.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook