Henry Hyde, champion of life

With the death Thursday of former U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde, this nation has lost a rare public servant who spoke his conscience about the sanctity of human life.

He first made waves on pro-life issues in 1976, when he added an amendment to an appropriations bill that stopped Medicaid from paying for abortions. Hyde later said he was surprised to win that vote, but since then the Hyde Amendment has been prominent in U.S. law.

Hyde was also prominent in the fight to ban the grisly practice of partial-birth abortions in a measure which was vetoed by President Clinton but finally signed into law by President Bush in 2003.

He was also well-known for his successful effort to help impeach President Clinton.

Among other issues, Hyde supported extending the Voting Rights Act, backed Clinton over a ban on assault weapons, fought for family-leave legislation and supported constitutional amendments requiring a balanced budget and prohibiting abortions, flag-burning and same-sex marriages.

But it was his pro-life efforts for which is probably best known and will be most remembered. President Bush, on learning of Hyde’s death, said: “This fine man believed in the power of freedom, and he was a tireless champion of the weak and forgotten. He used his talents to build a more hopeful America and promote a culture of life.”

Dr. Wanda Franz, president of the National Right to Life Committee, said: “By conservative estimate, well over one million Americans are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment — more likely two million.”

Hyde, who was an accomplished orator, once asked an audience to imagine what it would be like upon dying to face God’s judgment:

“When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I’ve often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God and a terror will rip through your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, “Spare him because he loved us,” and God will look at you and say not, “Did you succeed?” but “Did you try?” “

Henry Hyde was 83 and died of complications from heart surgery.

A nagging assumption

Almost as interesting as the answers of the candidates in last night’s CNN/YouTube Republican debates were the questions fired at the candidates.

While there were many good questions, a number of the topics, from abortion, to the death penalty, to the Bible, played to liberal stereotypes of conservatism.

It’s not a surprise that CNN would plant liberals among the questioners, but the accusatory and even fearful tone of some of the questioners grew tiresome.

On abortion: If abortion became illegal, how should a woman be punished?

On the death penalty, “especially for you religious fundamentalists”: What would Jesus do?

On the Bible: Do you believe EVERY word in this book?

You could almost here the MoveOn.org pamphlet writers panting as they stood by, waiting for a slip up.

The tone of those and other questions seemed to imply that voters had something to fear from religious conservatives.

It’s easy to understand why liberals fear conservatives: Traditional values, especially religious values stand in the way of many of the social experiments liberals want to inflict on society.

But more pernicious is an idea that has been worming its way into the culture for some time, in books, in movies, in magazines, on television, through the Internet, via all the means of modern communication: the notion that biblical religion is outdated and some sort of opponent to the “modern” world.

It’s a lie, of course. The Western “modern world” never would have come into existence if not for the civilizing and intellectual influence of Judaism and Christianity.

But it’s a lie that is becoming more and more common, and people of faith need to be aware of the trend because if we don’t defend our beliefs, no one else will.

Environmentalists’ selective preservation

For 200 years, rats have been living on Rat Island, off the coast of Alaska.

Now, state and federal biologists are planning a rat genocide via a poison compound dropped by helicopters. The poison will make them bleed to death and probably won’t do much good for fish and other animals that are going to ingest it.

The unusual mass slaughter is designed to completely eliminate rodents from the island so that birds, whose eggs are eaten by the rats, and certain plants, also eaten by the rats, can come back.

Now, I’m no great fan of rats (except for the famous one at Disneyland), but this impending massacre strikes me as a bit odd.

Biologists who are normally out in the forefront of trying to shut down housing projects, industrial developments, water supplies, etc. to “save” any little bug, flower or fish are now gearing up like Rambo to wipe out animals that have dominated their environment for two centuries.

If the U.S. wanted to build a baby formula factory on the island, they’d probably declare the rats endangered. But there’s no commercial interest in the property, so the slaughter may proceed. After all, the birds were there first, right?

The birds haven’t been there for years, and are no longer there owing to that old Darwin principle of survival of the fittest, but biologists know better than Mother Nature what’s right. Somewhat similar to the way some scientists “know” the world is the right temperature right now and must not be allowed to change.

Perhaps it’s because the rats got there via human conveyance. The human taint can doom any species. It’s a wonder environmentalists put up with dogs and cats.

Maybe I’m just too naive to expect something like consistency from the enviro faction.

Scratch an environmentalist, find a terraformer?

Nope, no Muslims here

When is a Muslim not a Muslim?

When he’s a disadvantaged minority suffering racial and ethnic social disparities, according to the world’s news organizations.

Perhaps you’ve heard about the rioting going on in the Paris suburb of Villiers-le-Bel for the past two days.

Perhaps you’ve heard that the riots started when two teens on a motorcycle collided with a police car and rioters accused the officers of not helping the boys.

What you likely didn’t hear is that the rioters are Muslims, living in a Muslim slum, accusing the police of not helping two Muslim teens who were riding an unregistered, possibly stolen, motorcycle at unsafe speeds without even wearing helmets. The officers in question have been tested for alcohol (negative), appear not to have caused the accident and according to records called emergency services to the scene, officials said.

In an echo of the 2005 Muslim riots around France, the Muslims are once again attacking police stations, torching cars, looting shops, burning libraries and a McDonald’s, and pillaging. At least 38 officers have been wounded, having been attacked with rocks, Molotov cocktails, shotguns and hunting rifles.

Of course, you would be excused for not knowing the 2005 riots were caused by Muslims, since the news media then buried the fact and are still burying it.

The Associated Press referred to the previous riots as “weeks of unrest in 2005 in poor neighborhoods with large minority populations.”

It describes Villiers-le-Bel as “a town of public housing blocks that is home to a mix of Arab, black and white residents in the French capital’s northern suburbs.”

Regarding the ongoing problems, AP reports that “money poured into poor French suburbs in recent decades had done little to solve problems vividly exposed by the 2005 riots, including discrimination, unemployment and alienation from mainstream society.”

For those who don’t speak PC, let me translate the above AP quotes: The previous riots were weeks of violent hell perpetrated by Muslims who don’t want to assimilate into French culture and get jobs; Villiers-le-Bel is a town of welfare-receiving Muslims of many colors and nations; taxpayer money wasted on these ingrates has done nothing to change the fact that Muslim immigrants in France have no respect for French society and expect the government to kowtow to their whims.

It’s no surprise that France’s Socialist Party is using the latest riots to make political hay while excusing the criminals, as socialists around the world share the desire to overturn Western culture or at least shake it up so they can rise to power.

But the media’s motivations for continuing to hide the identity of the perpetrators of the violence in France are harder to discern and deeply disturbing.

Global warming: Science serving socialism

Now comes word via Agence Free Press that a “study” has found the number of natural disasters worldwide has quadrupled in the past two decades.

According to Oxfam, described as a British charity, the world suffered about 120 natural disasters per year in the early 1980s, and now sees about 500 per year.

The culprit? Global warming. (Like you couldn’t have guessed.)

And who’s hurt the most by these natural disasters? The poor. (Another slow one over the plate.)

Rather than bother to look at the “science” behind this report (primarily because there doesn’t seem to be any beyond getting numbers from the U.N.), it’s probably more worthwhile to take a look at Oxfam.

A group that originally was formed in Britain in WWII to break through the Allied blockade and bring food to Nazi-occupied territories, Oxfam’s current stated goal is to create a “more equitable world.”

A look at the press releases on Oxfam’s Web sites quickly reveals some interesting patterns. The first, of course, is a habit of fear-mongering, using exaggerated threats of global warming, disease, famine and such to pressure governments into spending money on Oxfam projects. A second is a distinct anti-capitalist bent, as the group has taken on Starbucks, drug companies and other businesses. The third is a hallmark anti-Semitic streak, as the group regularly denounces Israeli actions and actively promotes terrorist causes.

In one infamous incident in 2003, Oxfam Belgium published a poster showing a dripping blood orange and the words “Israeli fruits have a bitter taste … reject the occupation of Palestine, don’t buy Israeli fruits and vegetables.” They were widely criticized for the anti-Israel message and the allusion to the old Jewish blood libel, and the organization issued an apology. However, it maintains its support for a boycott of Israeli products.

Earlier this month, Oxfam was after the Israeli government again for restricting deisel and power deliveries and creating a “public health crisis” in the Gaza strip, which is controlled by the terrorist group Hamas. No mention was made of the public health crisis created in Israel by Hamas rockets and bombs.

Oxfam has a budget of more than $300 million. Among its contributors are the Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Minneapolis Foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The true nature of this organization, which is in bed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Greenpeace and other far left groups, is obvious. Far from being concerned with raising the hopes and living standards of people worldwide, which historically only happens in free markets, Oxfam is servant to the socialist impulse to impoverish those it perceives as wealthy and successful and to control those who are free.

Once again, we see bad science being used to evil ends.

Happy Thanksgiving

Enjoy the holiday weekend. My blog is taking a break until Monday.

Stem cells — now clone-free!

Researchers in the past week have underscored what pro-life advocates have been saying for years about the stem cell research the government has been promoting: There is no good reason to pursue cloning of humans to study stem cells.

On Tuesday, two scientists — Dr. James Thomson, the first to grow human embryonic stem cells, and Dr. Shinya Yamanaka of Japan — announced they have been able to produce stem cells with the qualities of embryonic stem cells, but from human skin, eliminating the need for the unethical and wasteful technique of trying to clone embryos and destroying them to obtain stem cells.

Recently, Dr. Ian Wilmut, cloner of Dolly the sheep, announced that he is giving up on cloning as an unproductive technique for creating stem cells and turning to techniques similar to that of Thomson and Yamanaka.

The question is, can the government get its head out of the sand and realize that it should stop funding dubious and unproductive experiments in human cloning disguised as stem cell research. The shortcomings of this method, called euphemistically “therapeutic cloning,” have been well known for many years, but Congress, California voters, the media, celebrities and others have chosen to ignore them.

Numerous stem cell companies have spent millions of dollars researching “therapeutic cloning,” and they aren’t likely to give up federal grants without a fight.

Meanwhile, truly promising research into adult stem cells and alternative methods of obtaining embryonic stem cells have gone wanting.

Congress should take the ethical step of banning human cloning and start focusing on real research.

About that unbiased media

As a journalist, I’m supposed to be sympathetic toward my fellow journalists who find they have run afoul of the authorities. But honestly, I’m having a little trouble feeling the love for this guy:

Bilal Hussein, an award-winning Associated Press photographer, is facing a possible criminal case in Iraqi court after American officials decided to pursue charges that there is “convincing and irrefutable evidence that Bilal Hussein is a threat to stability and security in Iraq as a link to insurgent activity” and that Hussein is “a terrorist operative who infiltrated the AP.”

An AP attorney called the move a “sham of due process.”

Hussein has been held by the U.S. military for 19 months after being picked up in Ramadi in April of 2006.

Hussein, it should be noted, is not just any AP photographer, but part of a Pulitzer Prize winning team documenting the Iraq war.

The AP considers this whole situation to represent a denial of Hussein’s right to due process and a fair trial. AP officials say their investigations have turned up no evidence Hussein was anything other than a photog in a war zone. Hussein is not an American citizen but a native of Fallujah.

According to AP, the morning of April 16, 2006, Hussein was out buying bread when there was an explosion nearby. He ran home and allowed several strangers to follow him, as it was customary to offer shelter in times of trouble in the city. Later, a group of Marines used his home as an observation post. The Marines wound up arresting Hussein and detaining the guests he had invited into his home.

Two of those guests were determined to be “suspected insurgents,” and at least one of them was later convicted in an Iraqi court of having a phony ID.

The military has previously said it was investigating whether Hussein offered to provide false identification to a sniper trying to evade U.S.-led forces, and whether Hussein took photos synchronized with insurgent attacks. The AP says it has investigated both claims and found evidence to disprove them.

I’m keeping an open mind, but I’ll definitely wait to hear how this one turns out.

The global warming grab

Just in case there was any doubt that the whole global warming scare is about government picking your pockets, two stories this weekend highlighted the potential of this manufactured crisis to destroy world economies.

First comes the latest report from the U.N., which is the source of much of the hysteria, emphasizing that climate change is “unequivocal” and outlining all sorts of “abrupt and irreversible” disasters, like less drinking water,  species extinctions, lower agricultural yields, and of course rising sea levels.

So far of course, in the 20 years or so environmentalists have been tooting this horn (it was global cooling in the 1970s), none of the predicted disasters have occurred, but the U.N. assures us they will, citing the “consensus” among scientists. (Here’s a tip: Whenever a report says “scientists agree” or “most scientists agree,” you’re being flimflammed. Science is not about consensus, but facts.)

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is challenging governments to take action based on the report.

In the other story, word comes that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is prepared to do the U.N.’s dirty work and will announce that current legislation to reduce his country’s CO2 output by 60 percent by 2050 isn’t severe enough, and he may propose a doubling of targets for “clean” energy (Another tip: Use of the word “clean” or “green” in relation to any sort of energy production almost always means “less efficient and costlier.”)

On this side of the pond, the Washington Post reports that Democratic presidential candidates’ proposals for fighting climate change “will require a wholesale transformation of the nation’s economy and society,” and will cost billions, if not trillions of dollars.

Seems to me I’ve heard something like that before.

The Post went on to say that analysis of a recent MIT study showed that “under the scenario of an 80-percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity.

“At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.”

The future — our future — yours, mine and ours — is grim indeed, not because of any climate change that may or may not happen (the jury is still out on that one, despite the U.N.’s insistence that it’s been factually established). Our future is darkened by the greed and stupidity of politicians who will go to any lengths to grab power under the pretense of staving off a predicted 1 to 2 degree change in the weather.

Meteorologist John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, recently joined the ranks of experts proclaiming global warming a hoax. He had this to say:

“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global warming; it is a scam. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environment whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon, they claimed to be a consensus.”

If, despite all the facts pointing to the perpetration of a fraud on a mass scale, you still believe global warming is an urgent threat, then you need to answer two simple questions, and you SHOULD be able to answer them if global warming theories were correct.

The first question: What is the best average temperature for the Earth?

The second question: Do you truly know (not just believe) that the consequences of not doing anything justify the obvious disasters that will be created by pursuing the global warming agenda?

“Tilting at windmills” used to be the phrase used to describe a foolish quest. Today’s politicians are one-upping Don Quixote by tilting at the wind.

Chinese Connection — the SF Bay Oil Spill

As cleanup continues in the San Francisco Bay after last week’s oil spill, one can’t help but notice that the Chinese connection seems to be downplayed, not only by the media, but by state and other government officials.

The Coast Guard has already replaced at least one officer in the incident, and is being criticized by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for its role in the environmental mess.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has already blamed the Department of Homeland Security (your guess is as good as mine here) and called for a “full and expedited investigation into the cause of the accident, as well as the Coast Guard’s response.”

The ship’s pilot, Capt. John Cota, a bar pilot of 25 years’ experience, is bearing the brunt of the criticism, as may be appropriate.

But barely mentioned in all of this is the all-Chinese crew of the Chinese ship. Maybe I’m just a landlubber, but it seems to me someone should have been at the front of the ship, calling back to the pilot something like, “hey, you’re gettin’ kinda close to that bridge.” How hard is that?

Any way, the Chinese crew members are apparently refusing to talk and have hired lawyers, according to the National Transportation Board.

Sen. Feinstein’s husband, it is well known, has numerous business connections in China and a great interest in not offending his partners. The senator also has personal ties with the Chinese leadership and has been a great defender of the communist regime. In 1997, the Feinsteins even got to dine in Mao’s former personal residence with Chinese President Jiang Zemin.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has also made trips to China and is something of an icon over there.

Hot on the heels of numerous recalls of made-in-China products, an oil spill would only further cement China’s growing reputation as an untrustworthy trading partner.

In politics, the rule is if you want to know why anyone is doing something, just follow the money. There’s a great deal of money involved in business relations with China.

One hopes that fact will not prevent a complete and honest investigation into the causes of this oil spill.