Category Archives: Blog

Parallels between abortion and the Holocaust, Part 1

In the early days of the Internet, before what we now know as social media, people exchanged ideas in forums and Usenet groups. After observing many such discussions an attorney named Mike Godwin postulated an argument that has become one of my favorite things to spring from the entire online enterprise. He said, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, the longer an online discussion goes–regardless of topic or scope–someone at some point will bring up a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

This statement is now known as Godwin’s Law, sometimes called Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies.

The problem Godwin highlights is most comparisons are glib involving neither a valid historical nor philosophical basis. Godwin himself says he wants people “to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.” If you have spent any time at all online you know Godwin’s Law to be true. At times I’ve seen a non-participant jump into a rapidly fraying thread with the single word “Hitler” or “Nazis.” By skipping ahead to the inevitable they demonstrate the degeneration taking place in the discussion.

But, what happens when a comparison to the Third Reich is warranted? Should it be ignored? Because the comparison has been worn out are there never appropriate parallels? So recklessly and mindlessly has Hitler been invoked to use the comparison almost automatically invalidates one’s argument. It is seen as an admission of a weak, unsupportable point of view. This knee-jerk reaction speaks both to the shallow analysis of the over-user and the intellectual laziness of the person who would dismiss the argument out of hand.

The very nature of the Holocaust demands earnestness of thought. Our concept of genocide, indeed the coining of the term, has arisen as a result of Hitler’s Final Solution. Raphael Lemkin, in his work Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (1944), coined the term by combining Greek genos (γένος; race, people) and Latin cīdere (to kill). Though other genocides have taken place in the last 100 years (i.e., Armenians, the Rwandan Genocide, and Srebrenica Genocide), “Holocaust” is generally reserved for the attempted total extinguishing of European Jewry by Hitler’s Third Reich.

One area of clear parallels with the Third Reich is the abortion-on-demand mindset in America. Children have been linguistically reengineered in ways that would make Orwell seem positively straightforward. Since January 1972 some 50 million lives have been artificially and often violently ended before birth in the United States. Comparison to the Nazis are real, valid and ongoing. These articles are only intended to start your own thinking process, not to raise every conceivable point. However, on this 4oth anniversary of Roe v Wade these ideas are worth our consideration.

Introduction

More than three decades ago Notre Dame professor James T. Burtchaell published a series of essays on abortion. Compiled into the book, Rachel Weeping: The Case Against Abortion, it remains a blistering assault on national pro-abortion policy. No less than the Los Angeles Times called it “a searing, impeccable documentation,” while the Library Journal said it offered “extensive information and profound reflection.” “Unassailable” and “unequaled” could easily be added.

Each is worth reading (the book itself should be added to every personal library), but the two historical essays comparing abortion to American slavery and the Holocaust should not be missed. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the power in these writings. Today we will look at abortion and the Holocaust.

Burtchaell is careful to distinguish arguments and process used by the Nazis from the Nazis themselves. In other words, he does not equate pro-abortion advocations to the Nazis in a direct parallel. He does, however, draw clear comparisons to the arguments and mindsets used in both cases to introduce scenarios beforehand thought improbable, impossible or unthinkable.

Ponder the Germanic scenario. There must be an answer as to why millions and millions of human beings died without hearing or trials. There were no hearing or trials because no victims were accused of any crime; they simply were not wanted. Burtchaell asks and answers.

Who did this to them? The SS, the Gestapo, the German Wehrmacht, military and civilian medical and hospital personnel, conscripts from subject countries like Lithuania and the Ukraine, the police of Germany and its tributaries, the governments of cooperative regimes, and the German government in its many ministries: military, Reichsbank, Propaganda, Interior, Transport, Economy, Food and Agriculture, Finance, Labor, Security, Foreign Affairs, and Justice. Many tens of thousands of people–mostly but not exclusively Germans–merged their wits and their efforts that many millions of their fellow humans–not as soldiers nor as criminals–might be destroyed. (pgs. 144, 145)

In Burtchaell’s mind there were “seven factors in the Holocaust which may help us to understand it as an archetype of massacre that is acknowledged only after the fact.” [Emphasis mine.] We will look at five of these in brief–two today and three in the next post.

1. Depersonalization of the victims.
Germany did not simply awaken one day to find its citizenry acquiescent to a genocidal culture. Many years of treating certain groups as sub-human or not human prepared the normal German to view Slavs, Jews and others as life not worthy of life.

When Dr. Eugen Haagen, professor of hygiene at Strassburg University, was receiving prison inmates in batches of two hundred to be injected with typhus, a question was raised whether some of the experimental subjects might be Alsatians. Haagen’s assistant explained reassuringly that “the experiments would not be conducted with prisoner but only with Poles” as “Poles really are not human beings.” Slavs, in the National Socialist racial scale, were classed as subhumans, Untermenschen, only one grade above Jews. (p. 145) Emphasis in original.

Also,

Himmler once cautioned his SS generals not to tolerate the stealing of property which had belonged to dead Jews. “Just because we exterminated a dead bacterium,” he said, “we do not want, in the end, to be infected by that bacterium and die of it.” (p. 147)

There are endless examples of dogmatic racial superiority and eugenics in Nazi Germany and well before. It was all over medical texts, psychiatry and psychology teachings, propaganda, and even math books.

Below is a list of words and phrases used in the “transformation of nomenclature for the unborn.”

The unborn has been designated as “protoplasmic rubbish,” “a gobbet of meat protruding from a human womb” (Philip Wylie); “a child-to-be” (Glanville Williams); “the fetal-placental unit” (A. I. Csapo); “gametic materials,” “fallopian and uterine cell matter” (Joseph Fletcher); “a part of the mother” (Oliver Wendell Holmes); or “a part of the mother’s body” (Thomas Szasz); “unwanted fetal tissue” (Ellen Frankfort); “the products of pregnancy” or “the product of conception” (HEW); “sub-human non-personhood” (F. Raymond Marks); “child Who-Might-Have-Been” (James Kidd); “so much garbage” (Peter Stanley)…”a collection of cells” (Malcolm Potts)…”potential life” (Mr. Justice Blackmun)…and “a non-viable fetus ex-utero” by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (p. 196, 197)

Two people read Nazi propaganda. The left column reads, “The Jews are our misfortune.” [Image credit]

2. Euphemistic language to cover torment
Speaking of language and the end result, Burtchaell notes, “The most common outcome was death, but, to avoid all open mention of death and its violent forms, official documents developed an elaborate, almost elegant, euphemy” (p. 152). Think Orwellian and you will get the idea.

I’ll forego the German and list only some English translations:

evacuation, resettlement, clean-up, labor in the East, cleansing, disinfection, special treatment, return undesirable, departed, special actions, forwarded for special measures, inoculated off, separately quartered, transit camp, bath houses, clean-up of the Jewish question. (pg. 152, 153)

And most well known of all the “final solution to the Jewish question.”

This pastel colored language of the grave–this whitewashing of tombs–did not appear only in words and phrases. It was found in the corridors of official life.

There was the 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Posterity (which affected prevention through sterilization or death); the Reich Committee for Children (which destroyed them); the Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary Diseases and Constitutional Susceptibility to Severe Diseases (which identified those to be eliminated); the Non-Profit Patient Transport Corporation (which conveyed them to the clinics where they would die); the Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care (which paid for it); and there was “euthanasia” and “mercy death” (which was what it was all about). (p. 153)

The Nazis, of course, addressed all issues of potential dilution to the master race including the crippled, retarded and infirm. “These victims were characterized as ‘useless eaters’ and ‘socially unfit.’ Their treatment, as one book described it, posed ‘The Problem of Abbreviation for Worthless Lives'” (pg. 154). Death as abbreviation; how lovely.

The same euphemistic obfuscation was present in the move toward legalized abortion and continues to this day.

“termination of potential life,” “termination of pregnancy,” “therapeutic abortion,” “treatment,” “life-rationing,” “post-conception planning,” “menstrual extraction,” “insure non-pregnancy,” “non-meaningful life,” “unwanted child” (pgs. 202, 204, 205)

Since publication of Rachel Weeping we can add others: “women’s health and reproductive freedom,” “private family matters,” “ensuring fetal demise,” “women’s rights,” and perhaps the most Orwellian of all: “choice.”

And where, exactly, might one go for “post-conception planning”? At the time of Burtchaell’s writing he knew of at least these:

In Pittsburgh there is Women’s Health Services, where the services have little or nothing to do with women’s health. In Florida there is the Orlando Birthing Center, which will handle second-trimester abortions but no births. In Leiden one finds the Center for Human Reproduction, which is concerned to arrest reproduction, as also the Water Tower Reproductive Center in Chicago. In Missouri, Parents Aid aids women to avoid being parents, while in Chicago “Family Guidance” guides people to prevent families. Pre-Term and Pre-Birth in Chicago preclude full-term births. (p. 204)

Be reminded: he is not saying these people are Nazis. He is saying the same “language as smoke screen to the truth” was used in both instances. Any convincing disproval is unlikely.

Next up: 3. Disavowed malicious intent, 4. Once initiated, killed indiscriminately, and 5. Found it an occasion to acquire wealth.

Text and Video of President Obama’s Second Inaugural Address

The full text of President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address:

Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice,
members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Each time we gather to inaugurate a President we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional — what makes us American — is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

president obama oath of office inauguration

President Obama takes the oath of office.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they’ve never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. (Applause.) The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

And for more than two hundred years, we have.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people. (Applause.)

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. (Applause.) An economic recovery has begun. (Applause.) America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it — so long as we seize it together. (Applause.)

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. (Applause.) We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own. (Applause.)

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. So we must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. (Applause.) For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.

We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us at any time may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. (Applause.) They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great. (Applause.)

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. (Applause.) Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.

The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries, we must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. (Applause.) Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. (Applause.) Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war; who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends — and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully –- not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. (Applause.)

America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe. And we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice –- not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity, human dignity and justice.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths –- that all of us are created equal –- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth. (Applause.)

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law –- (applause) — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity — (applause) — until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. (Applause.) Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.

That is our generation’s task — to make these words, these rights, these values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time. (Applause.)

For now decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. (Applause.) We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years and 40 years and 400 years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction. And we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.

They are the words of citizens and they represent our greatest hope. You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course. You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time — not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals. (Applause.)

Let us, each of us, now embrace with solemn duty and awesome joy what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

Thank you. God bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America. (Applause.)

Remember the media types who published gun owners names? [VIDEO]

Remember the recent dust-up over the news outlet posting gun-owner names and addresses online? They took the map offline. Here’s a summary from Reuters:

A New York newspaper pulled the names and addresses of thousands of gun permit holders from its website on Friday, ending a fierce battle over the data published after the Connecticut elementary school massacre.

The Journal News, which serves suburbs just north of New York City in Westchester and Rockland counties, cited in part New York’s new gun control law, which allows permit holders to request confidentiality, for its decision to take the data down.

The newspaper, owned by the Gannett Co, published a map with the names and addresses of permit holders in the areas it serves last month in the aftermath of the massacre of 20 children and six adults at the school in Newtown, Connecticut.

The publication created an uproar among gun enthusiasts, and the Journal News felt threatened enough by the outcry over the map to hire a private security company to protect its employees. State gun-owner groups had called for an advertising boycott until the newspaper removed the information from its website. [Emphasis mine.]

This week the organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership reported on a Project Veritas. Members took to the streets–literally–to demonstrate the depths of media hypocrisy on this issue.

Acting under the organizational name Citizens Against Senseless Violence, they contacted select media members and politicians (including Attorney General Eric Holder) offering free yard signs. The signs (pictured) read “This Home Is Proudly Gun Free.”

If this is legit, and it appears to be, you will see on this video as clear an example of duplicitous behavior as you are ever likely to witness. Worth all of your 10 or so minutes.

The list of Obama’s 23 executive orders on gun control

I’m still looking for the one that calls for the confiscation of all legal weapons. (See a brief explanation on the purpose and use of executive orders historically.) It’s also important to remember not everything the president writes is an executive order.

From Yahoo News:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

[Image credit]

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

There is more in the list about mental health than gun ownership. I thought that’s what gun owners were hoping to see. Honestly, I do not know why gun-control advocates are not more upset about these EOs than 2nd amendment defenders. They seem pretty benign to me.

The same is indicated by Forbes:

It does not appear that any of the executive orders would have any impact on the guns people currently own-or would like to purchase- and that all proposals regarding limiting the availability of assault weapons or large ammunition magazines will be proposed for Congressional action. As such, any potential effort to create a constitutional crisis—or the leveling of charges that the White House has overstepped its executive authority—would hold no validity.

C’mon folks, even Slate realizes how wigged out this all became. From political reporter David Weigel:

And also: Me. For a while on Wednesday, I referred to Obama’s “executive orders,” printing the list of actions in full, but muffing the terminology. Why did all of us do that? You know, I think the pre-game panic about the very idea of Obama “signing executive orders” — I think that got into our heads. The result, ironically, was that a lot of people learned that Obama did something very scary — 23 ORDERs, above and beyond the will of Congress! — that he didn’t do, at all. If nominating an ATF director was done by “an executive order,” the Senate wouldn’t have to confirm him.

So which of the lazy journalists got it wrongest? One point goes to Carl Azus, for referring incoherently to “laws that don’t have to be approved by Congress.” Another to Brooke Baldwin, who addes the drama of Obama “signing” these 23 orders as children watched, even though CNN had a camera on Obama as he didn’t do that. But the Marvel No-Prize surely goes to Cavuto, for his scary count-off of “23, 23!” orders that suggest a “president out of control.”

Honesty should have led Weigel to the conclusion most of us have already reached: his profession is overflowing with those both lazy and out of control. It is clear enough to the rest of the world, it should be clear to them.

The scoop on Obama’s Executive Orders

Folks on one side of the aisle have been off the rails about the possibility of President Obama’s executive orders in the gun control debate. Another of those infamous White House petitions has been started. This one is called “Impeach President Barack Obama if Executive Orders are signed to ban Assault Rifles, Guns & High Capacity Magazines”. The text of it reads

The Vice President has made it clear that 19 Executive Orders could / will come about if an Assault Rifle / High Capacity Magazine ban is not passed through the House. This is a violation of our 2nd Amendment. I propose that our elected officials Impeach President Barack Obama if he signs executive orders to take away this right to bear arms. Our 2nd Amendment was written to stand up against a tyrant government. Our government has F18s and F16s, we the people should be allowed a Semi Automatic Rifles to defend ourselves from a possible tyrant government take over.

As of this writing more than 96,000 signatures had been affixed. The lethality of an AR-15 against “F18s and F16s” has not been verified as of this writing.

Issued by FDR, perhaps the most egregious EO ever written, 9066, interred Japanese-Americans in WW2.

Some levels of ignorance are deep. That is not meant as insult, but according to the strict usage of the word. Most people simply have not taken the time to determine reality, or maybe people do not care. Either way, as with the petition above, it does not slow the opinion making or proclaiming, errant though it may be. There is a certain comfort level that comes with parroting what you have heard rather than finding the truth.

Enough of the opinion piece, back to the post…

Online resource Wikipedia says about executive orders (sometimes called “presidential directives”):

United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law, since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution.

According to the Government Archives, “Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government.”

Another explanation is given here,

Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed “Presidential Decision Directives.”

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President’s source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the “executive Power.” Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

They detail which part of the executive branch is responsible for a dropped ball, and extend EOs issued by previous presidents. In short an executive order has the force of law because it is intended to clarify existing law. It would make very little sense to patch a concrete wall with a bandaid.

This is not to say some president would not–or has not–used them inappropriately or expanded the powers of the executive branch unconstitutionally. I have no doubts about that. But, they all do it, not merely the ones “on the other team.”

How it usually works is this: Republican President issues executive order. Republicans assert its absolute necessity or ignore it altogether. Democrats’ hair catch on fire and warn of implosion of democracy.

Democrat President issues executive order. Democrats cheer as if biblical prophecy has been fulfilled. Republicans, with scalps on fire, warn of looming dictatorship.

Libertarians warn of both no matter who is in the presidency, but that’s for another post.

The fact is that President Obama is on pace to issue fewer executive orders than George W. Bush (291), Bill Clinton (364), Ronald Reagan (381), Jimmy Carter (320), Richard Nixon (364), Lyndon Johnson (324), Dwight D. Eisenhower (486), Harry S. Truman (896), Franklin D. Roosevelt (3,728, *winner). Through 2012 Obama has issued only 144. (Click here for EO numbers, dates and subjects.)

Simply and fairly all presidents use EOs when they feel such instruments are needed. Since Hoover, all presidents save 2 or 3 have used EOs to a greater degree than Barack Obama. The sky is not falling until he decides he wants to pass Truman or Roosevelt. If he tries, we all will know because he will need carpal tunnel surgery on both wrists.

*-In fairness, Roosevelt was in office 13 or so years and governed during a world war. Still his average per year was far above all others.

What is the big deal about Pinterest?

Over the last year the social media site Pinterest has grown at an exponential rate. The site has more recipes, home decor, home remodeling, and how-to’s than Ted Turner has bison patties. Since its inception it has consumed more women’s time than Anonymous has spent hacking government databases.

Users of Pinterest “pin” web pages links on “boards.” These boards can be themed to most any interest. “Following” others on Pinterest allows you to see what they pin to their board. If you like a particular item on another person’s board, you can “repin” it to your board. Influence on Pinterest is measured by the number of followers and numbers of repins.

For many, many years Sonya (my wife) crammed recipes into notebooks. Reading through various magazines inevitably led to pages ripped out and put into binders. Those were the “one day I’m doing this in our house” binders.

Recently I realized, for her, Pinterest is a visual, organized, readily accessible, virtual binder. The pages that once filled our laundry room are still there, but few have been added since she joined Pinterest.

But that was not the most unusual thing. Last week Sonya told me if Pinterest began charging she would pay to keep her account. If you know anything at all about social media you know that “how shall we monetize” is the billion dollar question. ($64,000 was just way too cheap.) Facebook users threaten armed revolt every time the idea makes the rounds. Twitter has banner ads and “sponsored” tweets. That is just a polite way of saying someone I do not follow paid to force themselves onto my feed.

Click to see Sonya’s Pinterest pinboard. She recently passed 9,000 pins and nearly 400 followers.

So the idea of someone who would willingly and unhesitatingly pay to use a particular social media really caught my attention.

I had already begun to think through how Pinterest is different from other types of social media. I have settled on this for one primary difference: Pinterest serves as a repository of information people access again and again. It’s combination virtual bulletin board, notebook and file cabinet all in one online stop. As my wife said, “I don’t want to lose all of that; I’ve worked too hard to get it together.”

If that is the case with a large percentage of users, Pinterest may find a way to become profitable where other social media have not been successful, or have feared to try.

If you are on Pinterest, please leave me a comment stating why you are drawn to it. If you are a “power user,” would you pay to keep all the pins you have? Do you have a board for blog posts?

Take a second to pass this post along to friends who love Pinterest and ask them to leave an answer.

Frederick Douglass on authentic Christianity

A few months back the twitters and blogosphere erupted over a song by hip-hop artist, Propaganda. I wrote about it as well.

The song is entitled “Precious Puritans” and is, in a Grand Canyon of understatement, thought provoking. Concerning well beloved puritan theologians, he raps:

How come the things the Holy Spirit showed them in the valley of vision didn’t compel them to knock on they neighbors door and say, “You can’t own people!”?

Your precious puritans were not perfect.

You romanticize them as if they were inerrant. As if the skeletons in they closet was pardoned due to the they hard work and tobacco growth.

As if abolitionists weren’t racist and just pro-union.

As if God only spoke to white boys with epic beards.

You know Jesus didn’t really look like them paintings. That was just Michaelangelo’s boyfriend.
Your precious puritans.

Dr. Anthony Bradley, addressing the response to the song (too often White and negative), tweeted this:

Evangelicals tend 2 misinterpret black discourse & language norms. A huge reason 4 misunderstanding “Precious Puritans” catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples…

— Anthony Bradley (@drantbradley) October 1, 2012

The link is to a scholary paper from Cambridge University Press entitled, “Language, Discourse and Power in African American Culture.”

One African-American who used language, discourse and power to rip the church the proverbial “new one,” was Frederick Douglass. Douglass (1818-95), a prominent American abolitionist, author and orator, launched a critique at the American Christianity of his day the comprehensiveness of which has scarcely been equaled. The intensity, analysis and truth shames many an attempt that have followed.

My friend Alan Cross, who blogs at Downshore Drift, recently made me aware of an excerpt from Douglass’ autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. In it the former slave writes:

I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon
Frederick Douglass
as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of ‘stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.’ I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which everywhere surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. . . . The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise.

Thoughts?

The Kindle version of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass is available free below. Just click the Amazon link.

Obama surrounds himself with children just like…

A meme circulating heavily this morning has to do with President Obama’s scheduled speech on gun control. According to White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney,

[T]he president will be joined by Vice President Joe Biden as well as children who wrote to the president after the Newtown shootings.
“They will be joined by children around the country expressing their concerns about gun violence and school safety, along with their parents,”

Both passions and accusations have run high since the Newtown, CT massacre as Sandy Hook Elementary School. The image below is one.

I mean, seriously, if Hitler, Mao, and Stalin had their pictures made with children does that not make Obama equal to them?

I drink bottled water. I’m sure every president in recent memory drinks bottled water. That does not mean I am or have been the president. We will forego the old putting pants on one leg at a time saw.

The stupid thing about the meme is, like many of the same genre, there is no context at all. They are simply pictures of a known leader and kids. Except for Stalin. That’s a drawing. He had probably already killed those kids. Or, maybe they were happy to get another potato. [UPDATE: A missionary friend of mine had this to say about the Stalin poster: “What’s ironic is that the Stalin poster is actually a parody. It says, ‘Thank you dear Stalin for shooting our parents.'”]

But, since we are on the subject, here is another well known dictator with a bunch of kids:

And another (in fairness he did not get the chance to be dictator, but would have):

And another:

Please don’t fall for these things. Guilt by association is not the domain of truth seekers. Besides that, easily disproven assertions weakens your argument and your credibility.

Oh, and that thing about Hitler taking away all the guns in Germany before the Holocaust? You might want to check again. It is not true. And here is a solid explanation of the Hitler “For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration” quote. Hint: He did not say it.

Against the objectification of females

When you see an image of a woman who is presented passively, and who demonstrates no other attributes aside from her physical or sexual being, that’s objectification.
Naomi Rockler-Gladen, from her article “Media Objectification of Women“

A year or so ago I removed all my domain registration accounts from Godaddy.com. It was the first hosting company I ever used because it was the most well known due to their heavy advertising.

Gradually though, something began to gnaw at me about their ads. For years companies have used sensuality to sell everything from beer (remember the Swedish Bikini Team?) to burgers (the current Hardee’s middle-school mentality). Go Daddy was doing the same thing. It was like they were afraid most people could not conceive of domain space in the same way they could a hamburger. The result was skin tight leather, lots of cleavage and scant information about how to reserve mywebsite.com.

The movement to liberate women from the supposed shackles of male oppression in the U.S. celebrated the right of women to assert themselves, to use their feminine wiles to their lasting advantage. “If you have it, flaunt it,” was expressed by more than one approving feminist.

But a not-so-funny thing happened on the way to, or perhaps as a result of liberation: objectification.

One end of liberation has clearly been a loss of respect. Men have certainly lost respect for women, but women have also lost respect for themselves. When primary expressions of liberation include women making objects out of themselves someone needs to ask, “Is this all there is?”

A mild depiction of media objectification of women. [Image credit]

While Rockler-Gladen’s definition above is valid, I think the issue is deeper. Objectification is to disregard the humanness of any person for any purpose of self-satisfaction.

Objectification takes place when a pimp beats a women into submission and lies repeatedly to keep her there, so he can sell her for profit. She is not feminine, she is not human, she is an object to be traded. Objectification takes place when a professional rapist humiliates, assaults and violates an eight-year old girl in some dank Indian brothel until her spirit is broken. She is not feminine, she is not human, she is an object to be rented. Objectification takes place when twenty adult males file in to rape that same girl on Monday, twenty more on Tuesday and another twenty day after day until emotionally she is destroyed, mentally she is decimated and physically she is diseased. Then, like an object, she is thrown onto the streets.

Nicholas Kristof reports:

In India, a 23-year-old student takes a bus home from a movie and is gang-raped and assaulted so viciously that she dies two weeks later.

In Liberia, in West Africa, an aid group called More Than Me rescues a 10-year-old orphan who has been trading oral sex for clean water to survive.

In Steubenville, Ohio, high school football players are accused of repeatedly raping an unconscious 16-year-old girl who was either drunk or rendered helpless by a date-rape drug and was apparently lugged like a sack of potatoes from party to party.

And in Washington, our members of Congress show their concern for sexual violence by failing to renew the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark law first passed in 1994 that has now expired.

Most do not see most objectification for what it is. However, the attitude is the same even if the end result is not. That we oft mistake it for beauty speaks as poorly on the viewer as on the victimized.

In January 2012 Kent Meuller posted “Marketing and our Messed Up Priorities: How We Got it Wrong with GoDaddy” on his blog at Inkling Media. Part of his argument against objectification included this story from a girl who worked for a short time at a Hooters restaurant. She said,

A restaurant like that makes it appear okay to objectify women in a sexual state and a sexual state only. I’m an attractive girl carrying your food wearing a tank top showing off my [breasts] and booty shorts. On top of this, we were encouraged to flirt and ‘tease’ our customers in order to not only get bigger tips, but continue business. Even worse, people bring their CHILDREN in there…we had a birthday party for an 8 or 9 year old. I mean, they have a kids menu!

I was embarrassed by my job so much that I didnt tell my family thats where I worked. At that time, I was also suffering from the affects of bulimia and anorexia, so I think obviously it had a negative effect on that as well.

I felt like a stripper with clothes on, basically. Innapropriate is not even the word to use with some patrons. They feel it is okay to brush against your butt, stare down your shirt, but the uniforms encourage that, so in return, the restaurant is basically encouraging it.

Being asked on a date is one thing, but being solicited for sex, is another. If a patron was very rude or inappropriate, they would be asked to leave [by management], but butt taps, etc, were not punishable. “Just let it go,” was a normal response.

It absolutely was my choice to work there, and it gave me a better understanding of self worth and what our society has done to women.

When a society allows, yea encourages, objectification of a class that class loses their innate humanity. It is not possible to see people as humans created in God’s image and as objects at the same time.

Objectification and exploitation can only be stopped by men, because in almost every case men are the end users. Men fill the brothels, men descend upon the Super Bowl host city to pay for the opportunity to exploit women and girls for the night, men fly into cities like Atlanta, Georgia to attend “parties” where they’ve paid for the opportunity to rape girls, many of them drugged into compliance. Men pimp, men coerce, men kidnap, and even when women are in the line of exploitation it is often because they have victimized previously. Men can stop this. Men must.

The differences between the woman in the revealing swimwear, drunken coeds on Girls Gone Wild, a prostitute, a stripper or a sexually exploited child are only in the extremes and opportunities. The mindset is the same. Objects have no opinion, no right of refusal, no humanity, no femininity. Like a tire or a piece of lumber they are only good for as long as needed, then discarded. Human waste.

Christian husbands are instructed to

love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to Himself i splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. (Ephesians 5:25-28, New Testament, HCSB)

Far from objectifying my wife, or allowing others to do it, my responsibility as a husband is to prevent such a thing.

I was amazed to read last year a Christian man on social media excited because he could not wait to get to the beach to see his wife in her hot new bikini. What kind of attempt is this to inspire Christlikeness? Unless they were heading to a private beach, then he encouraged her to be the object of other men’s lust. Human? Feminine? Objectified.

Recognition and rejection of the objectifying mindset is also something we must teach our children. Our daughters need to learn the God given gifts of femininity and mystique (think Ruth) and our sons the view of Jesus toward those He died to redeem.

If you want to stop prostitution, the sex trade, manipulative advertising, exploitive movies and television, then refuse to participate in objectification at any level. The money flow will cease when all humans are treated as created in God’s image, marred as it may be. And, when money can no longer be made, it will stop.

Click to read a similar post, “The Comparison Trap.”

Barack Obama the accidental pro-life president

If only our president was moved to compassion over the plight of unborn children as he was after the tragedy at Sandy Hook. He has never been more eloquent. If only…

But when it comes to the most defenseless of all, our president is double-minded at best. Which is more defenseless, a six year old in a classroom facing a gunman or a child still attached to the mother confined by the walls of the womb facing a medical technician with dismemberment in mind? If a child in a classroom is defenseless against a madman, how much more so a unborn child against calm, methodical, professional annihilation?

Mr. President, get your thinking in order. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8).

(HT: Justin Taylor)

TaterBox

It is a practice site