The Abortion Debate: What Does God Say?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about abortion. This follows this post about Chinese cyber warfare. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown  for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.


The Abortion Debate: What Does God Say?






article by Darris McNeely





Every year a staggering 44 million abortions are carried out around the world. Each day about 120,000 lives—enough to populate a medium-sized city—are terminated by abortion, a practice legal in most countries. But how does God view the taking of the lives of millions of the unborn—or even one, for that matter?







Source: 123RFForty years after being declared legal in the United States, abortion remains a polarizing topic in society and in politics. Judges nominated for the country's Supreme Court are analyzed for their views on the issue. It becomes a public feeding frenzy that excites emotions and splits society into opposing groups. Emotions become raw.



The continuing abortion debate reveals deep fears and division. It is tragic that such a matter as the life of a child in its mother's womb, something that should bring people together, continues to divide and tear the moral fabric of a people.



In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Roe v. Wade that a woman's legal right to privacy extended to her decision to have an abortion.Thiseffectively legalized abortion. The result has been more than 50 million abortions in the United States over the last 40 years—a number equivalent to the entire populations of the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming combined.



Each year more than a million babies are aborted in the United States—a number greater than the population of any American city other than the nine largest and roughly equal to all the military deaths in all the wars in the nation's 237-year history.



Worldwide, the annual number is many, many times that—an appalling 44 million. China alone admits to more than 13 million per year. And since 1980, an estimated 1.2 to 1.3 billion abortions have been carried out around the globe—a number equaling more than one sixth of the current world population. This is far greater than all those killed in all wars in recent centuries.



Our minds reel at such figures. But what should we think about this issue? Where do you stand on the issue of abortion? Do you support it as a woman's right over her own body? Do you support it only in the case of rape, incest or where a woman's life may be endangered? Or do you, as many do, oppose it in any form? Who has the right to judge this matter?



Much more than just politics

Abortion is an emotional issue. It's also a legal issue where states make it so. It's also a moral issue. But most of all it's a spiritual issue. Regrettably, most don't recognize this. God is the Creator of life. What God says is the final word. His Word issued from His throne in heaven is the ultimate "supreme court"—a judgment no man or court of men could ever overrule.



The debate about abortion, the taking of a life from the womb of a mother, must be understood within a framework that starts with what the Creator of life says about His creation. God's Word, the Bible, is our foundation—our starting point for understanding.



The taking of life is not a mere political issue. If you think it is, you're wrong. It's a moral and ethical matter because life belongs to God. He created life, and He sustains all life on this planet. So His Word alone is where we begin to truly understand this issue.



Let's go to the Bible, to its beginning with the record of creation and then beyond, to understand what it says about life. Let's notice what is recorded there for us:



"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.



See All...). Here we are told that it is God who created human life. His breath animated Adam, the first man. God as Creator of life holds the judgment about life.



In Exodus we find the Ten Commandments. The sixth declares, " You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13Thou shalt not kill.



See All..., emphasis added throughout). The Sixth Commandment speaks strongly to the sanctity of created life. Only God who gave life has the authority to take life or order others to take it.



What about the unborn?

Does this verse apply to the unborn? You'll see that it does if you consider the unborn child to be human, to have life.



God takes great care in these founding documents for mankind. These writings were forged in a different world than ours, and they map out His view of human life. Scripture says that human beings are created in His image. Life began when He breathed it into the first man. Human life is of God. Therefore, it is sacred.



God took great care to show that human life must be protected, even in the womb. Notice this example, again in Exodus: "If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely . . . he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman's husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine" (Exodus 21:22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.



See All...).



The description here is of a pregnant woman "with child"— a human life, not a mass or blob of tissue!



Exodus 21:23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,



See All... continues, "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life." In other words, if the injury to the woman results in the death of the unborn, considered here a life, then it is called murder —with the penalty being a life for a life.



The Bible considers the unborn in the mother's womb to be a human life—nothing less. It's considered murder to take an action that destroys that unborn life!



Another key reference in Scripture about life in the womb is found in the story of Jeremiah, one of the major prophets of the Bible. In Jeremiah 1:5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.



See All... God tells him, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.



See All...).



There are enough references in the Bible to the life of an infant in the womb to give understanding that God considers the unborn child to be a human life. Consider also John the Baptist leaping for joy in his mother Elizabeth's womb when her cousin Mary came near carrying Jesus in her womb (Luke 1:39-45 [39] And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

[40] And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

[41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

[42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

[43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

[44] For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

[45] And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.





See All...).



The argument that an unborn child is not human or not really life is one of the most insidious arguments used by abortion proponents. To be blunt, it's an argument meant to remove any guilt that the decision to abort is the taking of innocent human life.



God, the Creator of all life, sees all aspects of life within His creation. He considers the life of a child in the womb to be something known by Him even at that stage of development. If God knows the child in the womb, it's a life that should be protected and cherished.



The amazing purpose for human life

How important is a human life? How vital is life— every human life—to God the Creator?



The answer is that human life is the center focus of God's plan and purpose for the universe. Notice this all-important passage King David wrote in the Psalms:



"When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that You care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings, and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of Your hands; you have put all things under his feet" (Psalm 8:3-6 [3] When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

[4] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

[5] For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

[6] Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:





See All..., English Standard Version).



In Hebrews 2 this passage is quoted and developed with a fuller revelation and explanation of man's destiny:



"For in that He [God] put all in subjection under him [mankind], He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not yet see all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone" (Hebrews 2:8-9 [8] Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

[9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.





See All...).



The next verse goes on to explain that part of Jesus Christ's mission and purpose was to bring "many sons to glory" (Hebrews 2:10For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.



See All...). But what does that mean?



God's purpose for human beings is to expand His divine family with "sons and daughters" (2 Corinthians 6:18And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.



See All...) created through a process ending in a change from physical flesh to glorified spirit through a resurrection. This is the divine reason for life, and the human act of reproduction is a model of that great process that will lead to the birth of children into God's immortal spirit family.



When human beings decide for themselves to intervene in and terminate the process of human life, they wrongly take for themselves the decision to end the life of one created to ultimately become part of the family of God! (To learn more, read "The Mystery of Human Existence: Why Are You Here? ".)



A culture of self-deification and death

Abortion is the deliberate taking of innocent human life. It is murder. The arguments that seek to split hairs about when life begins and whether a child in the womb of a woman is "viable life" are the height of human pride. The arguments over "rights" and "freedom" of a woman's power over her own body, and whether any human government can define life, is a modern tower of Babel—an insult to God and His divine Word. It is a modern form of idolatry where the self —and the supposed rights of self—are worshipped and esteemed higher than God.



In abortion we have created a culture of self-deification. We have made ourselves "like God" (Genesis 3:5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.



See All...). We say we will determine what is good and evil, right and wrong. We say that human life is nothing more than meaningless tissue that can be disposed of at will and at any time during the nine months of pregnancy. We say that a man and a woman can decide the power of life or death on a growing child created in the image of God with the potential of becoming God's own son or daughter.



If you know someone who is considering abortion, have them read this article or get reputable counseling. The life of unborn children should be regarded as precious and protected—not something to be callously extinguished through this terrible act.



It must begin with you and in you. You can decide to change. You can decide to turn from this culture and evil and death and choose to follow life. You can turn to the God of life. The Creator of all life offers you the chance to choose to love Him and obey His teachings.



By making this conscious choice you can increase the quality of your life. By grabbing hold of God, His teachings and His laws you can begin a journey back from this abyss created by a lawless world. You can turn from the self-centered culture that dares to redefine life on its own terms.



What we are asking you to do right now is examine your values and turn to God for help. Read what the Bible tells you about your destiny. Look into God's plan for your life and begin today to live with His purpose guiding your steps.



Have you chosen in the past to end a pregnancy? God offers forgiveness and hope. His grace is available when there is repentance and change of heart. You can move on from that decision and build a life based on God's knowledge.



God, the Creator of life, has set before us the most incredible promise of divine life within His family. The life He sustains on this planet today is the seed for His eternal spiritual family. All human life is precious to God, even the life of unborn children. We cannot and must not compromise on this point!



God laid out the teachings that protect life. He tells us to choose life. When we do, we honor life's Creator.







[ Read the corresponding articles: Child Sacrifice: We're Not So Different Today and A Lesson About Life From Mary ]

.

The Foreign Policy Impact of Iran's Presidential Election

A very interesting post from www.Stratfor.com about the elections in Iran. This follows this post about the U.S. giving aid to Egypt. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries such as Iran . For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read two very interesting books HERE.


The Foreign Policy Impact of Iran's Presidential Election

Geopolitical Weekly http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical-weekly


Stratfor By Michael Nayebi-Oskoui and Kamran Bokhari



Iranians went to the polls Friday to elect outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's successor. Candidates reported few serious problems with the process, and the losers sent congratulations to the eventual winner, Hassan Rouhani.



Compared to the political instability that followed Ahmadinejad's 2009 re-election, this process was relatively boring. But however the news media felt about the election, Iran needs domestic stability if it is going to change its foreign policy in a very challenging geopolitical environment.



Domestic Stability

Domestic stability has been the first goal for any regime that would project power from Iran's central highlands. The Persian Empire first emerged only after a central power subjugated the various groups of Indo-Iranian, Turkic and Semitic peoples within its borders. The suppression of 2009's Green Movement is only a recent example of a strong state apparatus quelling internal dissent. For millennia, various Persian regimes have sought to keep such domestic pressures at bay while foreign powers have sought to exacerbate these tensions to distract Iran or make it vulnerable to invasion.



In today's Iran, structural economic stresses that have persisted under decades of sanctions are coming to a head while sectarian competition in the region has halted the expansion of Tehran's regional influence. The clerical regime that currently rules the Iranian mountain fortress understands the threats from beyond its borders, but like its predecessors, it must make peace at home before it can address external challenges.



Much of the Western, and especially U.S., coverage of the Iranian elections centered on Rouhani, a figure known to many in the West. He took part in the Islamic Revolution and had ties to Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic republic. He also has ties to Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's second clerical president, and is a representative of the current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, on the Supreme National Security Council. Rouhani served as secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council for 16 years. As an extension of this position, he was Iran's chief nuclear negotiator from 2003 to 2005. It was during this period when Rouhani's foreign policy credentials became best known in the United States and Europe. It was also during this period when Western and Iranian nuclear negotiators came closest to reaching a deal.



Paradoxically, Rouhani combines conservative and reformist tendencies. As a cleric, he does not seek fundamental changes in Iran's power structure of the sort Ahmadinejad sought, but he also advocates cooperation with, and outreach to, other branches of Iran's power structure such as the military and civilian politicians. While defending Iran's nuclear program and regional agenda, he understands that simply issuing ultimatums to the West and escalating tensions rather than striking compromises will not win relief from sanctions. In this regard, he resembles the reformist former President Mohammed Khatami, under whom Rouhani served as chief nuclear negotiator. Rouhani can be expected to adopt a less incendiary tone in foreign policy than Ahmadinejad and to cooperate with other domestic power centers, like those of the supreme leader and the military and security forces.



Iran's domestic woes give it an incentive to pursue the kind of pragmatic engagement and dialogue with the West Rouhani was known for, especially on issues such as Iran's nuclear program and Tehran's interests in the Levant, Iraq and Afghanistan. This means Friday's election represents a relative success for the Islamic republic, though it denied the West's desire for a disruptive election that would see Iran's clerical regime fall.



Ahead of any meaningful traction on its foreign policy agenda, the Iranian government had to re-engage its electorate, something it has accomplished with this election. Tellingly, aside from current nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, seven of the eight candidates approved to run in this election campaigned on moderate or even reformist platforms, in stark contrast to the nationalist rhetoric of the firebrand Ahmadinejad.



Although largely unaffected by the regional unrest in 2011, the clerical regime needed to demonstrate both to its citizens and foreign capitals that the Iranian people could still bring about change at the ballot box, not just through the streets. Given the choice, the Iranian people chose pragmatism in relatively free and fair elections.



Though the Islamic republic cannot be changed overnight -- long-term structural changes are needed to revive the Iranian economy -- Rouhani's campaign and election have provided a relatively immediate, low-cost way to lessen some of the domestic pressures on the regime. Large-scale demonstrations in support of the president-elect following the announcement of his victory took place in Tehran and throughout many of Iran's urban centers, without the involvement of state security forces. For now at least, this suggests Iran's large and increasingly frustrated electorate seems to have been appeased.



While it is, of course, too early to know how his presidency will play out, the Rouhani administration at the very least will not begin its tenure plagued with doubts regarding its legitimacy of the sort that greeted Ahmadinejad's second term. Also unlike Ahmadinejad, the president-elect has the opportunity to bridge deep divisions within the clerical elite. With clerical authority and the supreme leader no longer under attack from the presidency, and with convincing electoral support behind him, Rouhani has already overcome the largest hurdles to amending Iranian policy at home and abroad.



Foreign Policy Shifts

It is in this framework that the West hopes to eventually re-engage Rouhani and Iran. Fiery rhetoric aside, Ahmadinejad also sought a strategic dialogue with the West, especially as his competition with the supreme leader prompted him to seek foreign policy wins. But the infighting that resulted from Ahmadinejad's attempts to undermine the pro-clerical structure of the republic impeded any progress in this arena.



If Rouhani can get the clerics behind him and accommodate the interests of Iran's military and security forces and the broader electorate, his chances of reaching a dialogue or negotiated settlement with the West will be much improved.



Guiding much of this will not be just the change in personalities but Iran's shifting geopolitical environment. Since it is no longer on the regional offensive, Tehran's previous defiant rejection of American interests is now incompatible with long-term Iranian goals in the region.



There is still much work to be done at home before Iran can switch gears, and Iran's president-elect still faces considerable challenges to enacting any major shifts in policy. Rouhani must still convince many of the stakeholders within the regime that he can be trusted. He must protect the economic interests of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps while building a relationship with Iran's larger and often overlooked regular army. He must also manage his relationships with Rafsanjani, his most influential political backer, and with the supreme leader. Rafsanjani and Khamenei are competitors, and although the approval and eventual success of Rouhani's candidacy may hint at a broader clerical rapprochement, the supreme leader will not take kindly to attempts by Rafsanjani to rule through Rouhani. Rafsanjani, however, is unlikely to stop trying to capitalize on the successes of his protege.



Against a backdrop of domestic political reconfiguration, gradual diplomatic outreach to and from Iran can be expected. Parliamentary elections in 2015 will provide greater insight into how much change Rouhani can attempt, and it is along this timeline we should expect to see Iran seriously re-engage in negotiations with the West. In the meantime, little substantive change will occur beyond more careful rhetoric regarding both Iran's nuclear program and Tehran's support for the embattled Syrian regime. While challenges to both Iran's domestic policy realignment and outreach to the United States thus remain, Western and regional hopes for such change endure.

 Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.

"The Foreign Policy Impact of Iran's Presidential Election is republished with permission of Stratfor."





Read more: The Foreign Policy Impact of Iran's Presidential Election
Stratfor

Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter
Stratfor on Facebook

A deeper threat is coming from China

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Chinese cyber warfare. This follows this post about who is trusted.  For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown  for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886-8632.

Discern the Times


As interesting as the NSA spying issue is, a deeper threat is coming from China.



[Darris McNeely] Jesus told His audience on one occasion to discern this time. I think what He was saying was to be able to cut through the distractions and to understand the real threats that are taking place.  I recently did a BT Daily where I talked about the NSA's spying  , alleged spying on American citizens by tapping into all of these billions of telephone calls that are made each day and the controversy that's erupted over that, which is interesting given that we are all on the grid.



Our lives are open. We willingly even divulge personal information on Facebook, Twitter, and every time we use a cell phone and go on the internet today and shop around. Nonetheless this is an issue that has erupted, and I was reading an article that drew a distinction between that and certain threats that come from China in China's ongoing efforts to hack into western companies and even our own security systems and military systems in the United States.



An article in today's Financial Times says, "Keep the Focus on the China Cyber Threat." And the statement that it makes here is that the great danger of the furor over the NSA, the National Security Agency's spying is that it will distract attention from the immense threat from China that US companies face. China trying to hack into companies' databases and even military installations is a major threat. There are other threats that loom before the United States as well. And that's the point. This can be a distraction. Yes, it is important that American's have their liberties guaranteed and protected, but the reality is that we have bigger threats.



And when Jesus said in Luke 12:56Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?



See All..., He said that to the hypocrites and to his audience he called them hypocrites and He said, "You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth. How is it though you do not discern this time?" It's important to make the distinction and understand what sometimes might be a distraction from larger threat that pose a more imminent danger. Understanding the times, weighing it all out, that's a critical point I think Jesus makes in this one warning.



That's BT Daily . Join us next time.

.

Tell Congress that Job Seekers Outpace Job Openings

A very interesting post from www.NumbersUSA.com about the fact that there are more U.S. job seekers than there are job openings. Therefore it's not a good time to bring in even more job seekers by immigration. This follows this post about Paul Ryan's amnesty views. This follows this post about the release of illegal immigrant felons from prison by ICE. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more about what is happening in the nation now click here and you can read the two very interesting books that are shown HERE.

Tell Congress that Job Seekers Outpace Job Openings

https://www.numbersusa.com/sendfax?refer=content%2Fmy%2Faction%2Fboard

A recent study shows that the number of job seekers far outpaces the number of job openings across all field of work. This means that bringing in more foreign workers would make it even hard for jobless Americans to find work.




Please send your U.S. Members of Congress and let them know about these numbers.
https://www.numbersusa.com/sendfax?refer=content%2Fmy%2Faction%2Fboard

Editorial: Focus for Defeating the "Gang of Eight" Amnesty Bill

Editorial

If you haven't thanked the 15 Patriotic Senators who voted against S.744 proceeding, it's not too late to do so here. Now there are state battles going on in the immigration front, namely in North Carolina, Maryland, California, Georgia and Texas.

On the other hand though, S.744 is the Big Battle and one can call all of the Senators, and that is not a bad idea, nor is focusing on all of the Republican Senators considering that only 15 of 45 voted against proceeding! One should also make sure to repeatedly contact the two Senators from one's own state, no matter where they stand.

A focused effort also can also include the following vulnerable ones. This list comes from www.HughHewitt.com who is very moderate on immigration himself, but has a handy list that you can focus on.


Six Republicans, Seven Democrats

http://www.hughhewitt.com/six-republicans-seven-democrats-and-the-hagel-nomination/

Thad Cochran of Mississippi 202-224-5054:




(http://www.cochran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-me







Susan Collins of Maine: (202) 224-2523



http://www.collins.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email







Mike Johanns of Nebraska: (202) 224-4224



http://www.johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=EmailSenatorJohanns







Lisa Murkowski of Alaska: (202) 224-6665



http://www.murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EMailLisa







Two more Republicans are on the fence:







Lindsey Graham of South Carolina: (202) 224-5972



http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSenatorGraham







John McCain of Arizona: (202) 224-2235



http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm







It is important that the next week be used by constituents and supporters of these senators to indicate to them the opposition that is widely felt in the country and especially among national security Republicans.



Seven Democratic senators facing tough re-elections in 21 months also need to hear from voters in their state:







Mark Begich in Alaska, 202-224-3004,



http://www.begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EmailSenator







Mark Pryor in Arkansas: 202-224-2353,



http://www.pryor.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm







Mary Landrieu in Louisiana: 202-224-5824:



http://www.landrieu.senate.gov/?p=contact







Kay Hagan in North Carolina: 202-224-6342:



http://www.hagan.senate.gov/contact







Tim Johnson in South Dakota: 202-224-5842:



http://www.johnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ContactForm







Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire: 202-224-2841



http://www.shaheen.senate.gov/contact/







Mark Udall of Colorado: 202-224-5941



http://www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact_us







These Senate Democrats need to hear from their states’ voters that their is the vote they are watching as 2014 looms. Many of these Democratic senators represent large military communities. It is hard to imagine those service men and women not noticing and remembering how these senators vote in the weeks ahead.

If Pelosi’s a “Practicing Catholic” Why Can’t She Follow Church Abortion Teaching?

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about Nancy Pelosi's abortion views. This follows this post about stopping future Kermit Gosnells. This follows this post about Texas' legislative Special Session.   For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can also get two very interesting books HERE!

If Pelosi’s a “Practicing Catholic” Why Can’t She Follow Church Abortion Teaching?


House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi made more eye-rolling comments yesterday when she called defending legal abortions to the point of opposing a late-term abortion ban “sacred ground.”



“As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this,” Pelosi said about efforts to stop late-term abortions. “This shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.” http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/14/if-pelosis-a-practicing-catholic-why-cant-she-follow-church-abortion-teaching/

Wknd Box Office: Man of Steel, This is the End, The East, Before Midnight, Fill the Void [LeMale et Ha'Halal], Love is All You Need

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: Man of Steel, This is the End, The East, Before Midnight, Fill the Void [LeMale et Ha'Halal], Love is All You Need


By Debbie Schlussel



There were so many new movies at the box office, this weekend. So here’s my complete set of reviews:




* “Man of Steel”: UnAmerican UnSuperman of Dull; “Truth, Justice & The American Way” MIA


By Debbie Schlussel



The first thing you need to know about “Man of Steel” is that there is no “Truth, Justice, and the American Way.” The iconic, patriotic Superman phrase is never uttered in this new movie, allegedly about Superman.


Bland of Steel



After all, the filmmakers hope to make mega-millions overseas, and why offend the mega-millions of America-hating foreign movie-goers with anything positive about America? I suppose this is liberal Hollywood’s version of “evolution,” since the last incarnation of Superman, “Superman Returns”–which stank and was far worse than this one (read my review)–had Daily Planet Editor Perry White say, “Truth, justice, and all that other stu.”



In fact, it’s hard to tell if the new “Man of Steel” movie, in theaters today, is really even about Superman. The word “Superman” is only mentioned once, and only in the last third of this very long, quite dull, and incredibly uninspired movie. It’s like they’re embarrassed by the guy. And it’s like he’s in perpetual embarrassment the whole way through, since I can’t remember seeing the guy (played by British actor Henry Cavill) smile until the very end of the movie. He’s in perpetual gravitas. Also not in the movie: photographer Jimmy Olsen, Lex Luthor, and kryptonite. They don’t exist in this version of Metropolis. There is however, a Black Perry White (Laurence Fishburne) and “Jenny” (with no last name), who is presumably the new chickified Jimmy. But the PC stuff isn’t completely down pat yet, because Superman hasn’t come out yet as a vegan Muslim Wonder Woman trapped in an carnivorous atheist Superman’s body, struggling to come out and get a sex change.



Though we see a few scenes of the American flag and some bumbling U.S. Army Generals (who mostly view Superman as the enemy), if you’ve seen the trailers and posters, the new Superman’s uniform is reptilian, dark, and dingy, and looks black and dark burgundy. That, too, is Hollywood lib evolution, since in the last Supe movie, “Superman Returns,” it was navy and maroon.



Also missing is any sense of morality, which was ample in most of the previous Superman products. In this movie, young Clark Kent’s dad (Kevin Costner) tells him that instead of saving a bus full of his classmates (after the bus careened off a bridge and sank in a river), he “maybe” should have let them die, in order to keep secret that he has super powers. Later in the movie, the dad stops Clark Kent from saving him from a tornado, in order to keep his special power a secret.



But here’s what is in the movie: the word, “d*cks”–not once, but twice . . . in two different scenes. Just GUH-REAT for a superhero movie filmmakers know will be attended by gazillions of young kids. Completely unnecessary. In one scene, a school bully calls a young Clark Kent, “a d*ckhead,” and in another scene, Lois Lane chides American generals, proclaiming that “if we’re done measuring d*cks,” she wants to look into mysterious developments near an arctic military base. In another scene, there is a field of skulls, but I guess today’s kids have already been exposed to such graphic stuff.



For me, Clark Kent will always be the late Christopher Reeve. He had charm, he had personality, he had chutzpah and was witty, and he was self-deprecating, humorous, and cool. There is none of that in this Superman. In fact, Henry Cavill is more the anti-Superman or unSuperman than anything. He’s almost more shlemiel than “Man of Steel.” He’s like a college professor activist for Greenpeace, not a superhero. Or maybe he thinks he’s a male supermodel, stuck forever in a pretentious pouting, brooding pose of extreme seriousness and pensive “thought.” Or, toward the beginning of the movie, he’s “The Incredible Hulk,” minus the green, but complete with shirtless, sculpted chest and torn up pants ripped off at the knees, stealing some people’s laundry for a change of clothes. But there is none of the magic or fun that Reeve and the writers and directors brought to his Superman movies in the late ’70s and early to mid-’80s. Those were entertaining. This is just a long slow slog that gets off to a decent stat, but just dies the rest of the way.



This movie did remind me a lot of the one bad Reeve “Superman” movie, “Superman III,” in which Superman is drunk, destroys a lot of buildings, and fails to save quite a few people. In “Man of Steel,” Superman destroys a lot of buildings while he’s fighting off his enemies from Krypton who come to planet earth, and a lot of people die. But I thought Superman was about peace and saving people. Hard to tell in this. And there are boring, prolonged, repetitive scenes of mass destruction of downtown Metropolis that are straight out of the “Transformers” (and “The Avengers”) movies’ playbook. Been there, seen that. And a little goes a long way. This was overkill.



There’s a lot in this movie that’s dull. Amy Adams is dull as Lois Lane, and she doesn’t seem right for the part. She phones it in when uttering her lines, completely devoid of any emotion or inflection most of the time . . . like vacant Brad Pitt in that weird, New Age Chanel No. 5 commercial. The movie is mostly washed-out sepia tones. I didn’t care for the flashbacks and flash forwards of this movie, which are constant. It was herky-jerky and ruined the continuity of the story and the plot. That apparently was by design because the plot is flat, and the villain, played by the one-note Michael Shannon, is dull, too.



The basic story is the one you’ve come to know about Superman–that he was born “Kal-El” on the planet of Krypton to parents. This time, his father, Jor-El, is a bloated Russell Crowe who is killed by rival, General Zod (Shannon). As they are about to be killed and their planet destroyed, the parents send their son to Planet Earth, where he is found and raised by Diane Lane and Kevin Costner. They are the only bright points in this movie.



We see Clark Kent as a kid in Smallville, where his special powers make him a pariah of sorts, so his father demands that he hide them from people. Later, because of this, he’s a drifter trying to find himself–first working on a rig, then in a restaurant in a small town. When Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane hears stories about a mysterious structure hidden near an arctic military base, she heads there, after winning a lawsuit against the U.S. military, which tried to keep her out. She comes upon Clark Kent, who rescues her as she explores a mysterious set of caves and tunnels in a mountain and sees strange robots flying in the air inside those tunnels. She writes it up, and her editor, Perry White, refuses to print it. So she seeks a Matt-Drudge-like website to release the story. But just before their encounter, Clark has released a beacon that alerts General Zod of Clark Kent’s whereabouts, and General Zod comes to earth, threatening the world unless Clark Kent is turned in to him. The FBI arrests Lois, and so Superman surrenders to the U.S. military, who surrenders him to Zod.



For the rest of the movie, it’s mostly non-stop fighting between Superman and Zod and his fellow criminals from Krypton, who broke free when the planet was destroyed. They want to re-establish Krypton on Earth, which will mean the end of human civilization, and Superman wants to save the Earth. At this point, you’ll probably be reminded of “Superman II,” in which Superman fought off three villains from Krypton (in fact, the female villain in this one looks a lot like the female villain in that movie). And like in that movie, they are stronger than he is. Also, like that movie, he inexplicably overcomes them and is victorious. I didn’t quite understand how Superman beat the much stronger villains from Krypton in this, and it’s kind of confusing and a bore for the last third of the movie.



This movie is nearly 2.5 hours. At least a half hour should have been lopped off. The script should have been tightened, and some magic, charm, and personality inserted somewhere. Many critics describe this Superman as “dark.” But, if anything, it’s more of a “cold” movie. It’s just not that entertaining. And it’s definitely not amusing. The movie was better than I expected, but that’s because I expected to absolutely hate it. It’s far better than the last outing, “Superman Returns.” But it still leaves a lot to be desired. It’s missing something, many things actually. It was just an okay movie (I saw it in 3D, which didn’t help make it better). And it didn’t seem like a Superman movie at all. “Man of Steel” is an imposter.



Near the end of the movie, Superman tries to convince the inept U.S. Army generals that he’s American and will work with them. “I grew up in Kansas. You can’t get more American than that.” (I wonder if they’ll keep that line in the film as they show it overseas.) It seems he’s trying to convince us in the American audience more than the generals onscreen.



No sale for me. In “Man of Steel,” we’re not in Kansas anymore.



HALF A MARX PLUS AN OBAMA


* “This is the End“: The good news about this movie is that half of Hollywood dies toward the very beginning. The bad news is that that part isn’t true in real life. Otherwise, this is yet another raunchy, disgusting, rarely funny offering aimed at teen and twenty-something slacker guys. If your idea of showing a guy urinating all over a toilet seat up close is funny, then this is for you. Ditto if you enjoy dumb, unfunny jokes about a guy ejaculating all over an old Playboy magazine or a scene of another guy getting oral sex. Classy. The movie also looks like a bunch of 30-something Hollywood stars wanted to make a quick buck and hang out at the same time, so they made it into a movie.

The story: a bunch of celebrities play themselves and attend a party at James Franco’s new, garish modern home in the Hollywood Hills. The story initially focuses on Jay Baruchel who came to Los Angeles to visit and stay with his fellow Canadian actor, Seth Rogen. But Baruchel is kind of a misanthrope. He hates hanging out with people, especially Hollywood people, hates L.A., and is suspicious of the motives of actors who claim to like him, such as Jonah Hill. But, despite his objections, Rogen drags him to Franco’s party, which is chock full of stars, including Rihanna, Emma Watson, Paul Rudd, and others. Soon, however, there are mysterious attacks on Hollywood earth, and it appears aliens have struck or that there is a giant earthquake. Baruchel and Rogen are the first to discover this because they went on a run to a convenience store. When they return to the party, no one believes them, until the ground starts caving in, in front of Franco’s house. Many of the celebrities and other guests at the party fall to their deaths in a giant black hole. The few remaining stars hole up in Franco’s house, including Rogen, Baruchel, Hill, Danny McBride, and Craig Robinson, trying to survive what eventually turns out to be the apocalypse, while they fight amongst themselves.



A few–very few–parts of this are funny. Mostly it isn’t. Even among raunchy, disgusting movies featuring big and semi-big stars, this was the least funny I can remember in some time. And, like I said, it was mostly just gross. It’s definitely not boring, but that’s the best I can say for it. It’s filthy crap. I liked the idea of the apocalypse and how childish and idiotic Hollywood stars act when it comes. But the movie collapses under unnecessary raunch, idiocy, and a flat-out mess.



FOUR MARXES


* “The East“: I had mixed feelings about this movie. On the one hand, it’s a terrific thriller, very interesting, and not anything you’ve ever seen before. And, even though it’s fiction, it has great insight into the far left, the Occupy Wall Street crowd, and the world of anti-business terrorists. It gets them down pat, down to the fact that many are the spoiled rotten, privileged kids of the wealthy. On the other hand, I felt it put too many ideas into the heads of those who want to attack businesses and perpetrate acts of terrorism upon them. And, worst of all, this movie seems to ultimately–at least in part–take the terrorists’ side, by showing the targets of the terrorist attacks to be evil corporate villains who poison and pollute America. Yes, the typical far-left view of business. But I think the movie also shows that the terrorists go too far, and, in the end, the protagonist of the movie–while for a time becoming sympathetic to them–doesn’t like what they do and realizes that they actually do real harm and are dangerous.



The storyline: a devout Christian (Brit Marling) former FBI agent is hired by a company that does counter-espionage against terrorists who attack large corporations. She is sent out into the field to infiltrate a terrorist group, “The East,” which poisons CEOs and does other terrorist attacks on corporations and their executives. Some of the group are scions of wealthy families and corporate CEOs. They get jobs as waiters at parties for top drug company execs and poison their drinks with deadly medicine produced by the company. They kidnap a Corporate CEO and one of his top execs and make them strip and go into polluted water. They are monsters and far worse than any of the allegedly wrongful business execs they attack. They are also “Freegans,” eating out of dumpsters, while they live in a boarded up home on the land of their leader, Alexander Skarsgard. As I said, the movie has these leftist freaks down pat, down to their various indoctrination techniques and cultish commune style living, complete with free love, community baths in a lake, in which they wash each other nude, and so on. It’s weird, but that’s how they are. Heck, that’s how they are in their tents in New York at their Occupy crap.



The movie is co-written by its star, a fantastic actress, Marling, whose praises I’ve sung before on this site. All of her movie projects are interesting and new, and several of them are great. And she writes and stars in most of them, always with keen, nuanced performances.



While I didn’t like all the messages, it’s an interesting and entertaining movie, if you know that these terrorists are the enemy, and I think everyone reading this site and this review knows that.



TWO REAGANS


* “Before Midnight“: This is the third installment in a series, beginning with 1995′s “Before Sunrise,” then following up with 2004′s “Before Sunset.” You don’t necessarily need to see the other two to figure out this movie, but it’s a good idea.



The first movie is the story of an American guy, Jesse (Ethan Hawke), and a French chick, Celine (Julie Delpy), both in their 20s, who meet and fall in love on a train running through Europe. They promise to meet again in ten years, but when that doesn’t happen, you get to the story of the second movie, in which he is a successful author who has written about the experience in his novel and she shows up to his book signing in France. He’s married, and they sleep together, with him missing his return back to America. This third (and, supposedly AND hopefully, final) installment finds Jesse and Celine married with very cute, young twin daughters. They are on summer vacation in Greece, where they are staying at a famous author’s home, while Jesse writes his next book.



I mostly hated this movie because it’s the story of every unhappy far-left wife who thinks she’s the Joan of Arc of feminism, and is “enslaved” by her evil husband who wants to work. Except the reality in this marriage, that Celine doesn’t get is that she’s the man in the relationship, and is lucky that henpecked, unappreciated Jesse remains. He wants to move the family back to his native Chicago, so that he can be with his son from his first marriage and be in his life as he becomes a teen and comes of age. But Celine wants to take a left-wing activist job in France, where they live. There is a ton of arguing and fighting, and who needs to go to the movies to see that. On the other hand, her feminist shrieking and ranting come off as absurd (because they are), and Jesse’s responses in their arguing are hilarious and I laughed repeatedly. You feel for this guy who gave up his American life for this annoying, far-left shrew. At least I did, though I don’t think it’s what the filmmakers intended.



I could have done without this movie and stuck with the far more charming first two installments. This was like the nightmare of reality. And who needs reality when you go to the movies? You want escapism. Instead, you have the constantly whining Delpy, who is now somewhat overweight, not that attractive, and spends half the movie in an ill-fitting dress that is too tight on her. Then, in one of the fighting scenes, she is topless with her droopy mosquito bite breasts. Yuck. Didn’t need to see them . . . or to see Hawke kissing them. No thank you.



Ditto for the movie, which is filled with New Age psychobabble of liberal Europeans.



ONE-AND-A-HALF MARXES


* “Fill the Void [LeMale et Ha'Halal]“: I’m not sure what the point of this Israeli film was . . . other than to creep people out about Orthodox Jews of the Chassidic variety and make their lives seem totally unhappy and weird. That’s what I got from this boring, awkward, pointless movie. And if I did not know and have Chassidim in my family (my cousin, Yermiah, is the leader of the Belzer Chassidic choir in Jerusalem), this propaganda might be effective, as it has been to so many movie critics who’ve seen it and, unfortunately, decried this life in a way they would never ever decry Muslim life. Most of the Chassidic Jews I know are actually very happy, joyous, and contented people, more so than most other segments of society. But you wouldn’t know it in this cold, sad movie. And if you didn’t get that in spades, the movie adds in a creepy character with no arms who has to have others hold her drinks while she drinks through a straw. Not sure what the armless have to do with Chassidic Judaism (as handicaps such as this afflict all walks of life no matter the religion or ethnicity), but they put it in, anyway. You can always count on secular Israelis to make the most anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel films imaginable. No wonder this won awards at so many Western film festivals, including Sundance.



In Hebrew with English subtitles, the movie is the story of a Tel Aviv-area Chassidic girl (strike one!–most Israeli Chassidic Jews live in Jerusalem), Shira, who desperately wants to get married and is in the process of meeting men for an arranged marriage. Soon, her pregnant sister dies in childbirth, and Shira and her mother take care of the baby. But the father wants to get re-married, and the grandmother is afraid she will lose contact with her grandchild if he marries and moves away, adding to her sorrow from losing her daughter. So, she pressures her daughter, Shira, to marry the man who was her brother-in-law. Through a series of silly machinations and arguments, the wedding eventually happens. The end.



Oh, and did I mention that, aside from being self-hating propaganda, this movie is slow and boring as hell?



FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR BIN LADENS


* “Love is All You Need“: This movie was not bad, but I could have done without all the fighting and melodrama. The suave and debonaire Pierce Brosnan plays a cantankerous, wealthy fruit magnate and widower who is based in Copenhagen, Denmark. (The movie is half in English and half in Danish with English subtitles.) His son is marrying the daughter of Ida (the charming Trine Dyrholm), a Danish hairdresser, who has just survived breast cancer and lost all of her hair. She catches her loutish slob of a husband cheating on her, just before she flies to the coast of Italy for the wedding at Brosnan’s seaside estate. At the airport, Ida has a car accident with Brosnan in the parking lot, and they discover they are soon to become in-laws. Eventually, they fall in love, amidst much turmoil and drama at the Italian estate. It’s definitely an entertaining, relaxing movie, but for the drama and weird, side gay tangent. I didn’t need to see two guys making out. Otherwise, I enjoyed it. It’s a cute love story, and the acting of the main players is pretty good, as is the chemistry between the romantic leads. The scenery is beautiful, too.



This is a chick flick, but it’s a decent one.



ONE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS