I've moved my blog from Google's Blogger platform, to Wordpress. You can view the new blog at StarStuddedSuperStep.com. All posts and comments have been transferred across. Will be leaving this (old) blog online for the time being, however commenting has been turned off.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Referendum File 3: Kiwis Might Fly
Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy
Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?
Reading between the lines of the latest email update from the Campaign for Democracy (previously "The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy"), it is clear that the petition to bring in binding referendums has hit the brick wall of public apathy to this issue. The petition question reads,
The question was approved by the Clerk of Parliament on 17 December, 2009. One year from the initiation of a citizens initiated referendum, the signatures will be required and will be counted by the Clerk's office. The office has a period of three months in which to do this. If the number is found to be insufficient (10% of the voting population, approx. 300,000), the Clerk will allow an additional three months for signatures to be collected, and then re-submitted. Tack on a further three months for the Clerk to tally up the new total, and hey... it's September 2011 already. Two months out from New Zealand's general election.
The update, put out by Larry Baldock (also leader of the Kiwi Party) states,
It sounds like Baldock wants to pull in the last few signatures in the five or six weeks he has left, and then submit them to Parliament, making a public statement about the number collected, and how significant it is to the issue of whether NZ should adopt binding CIRs or not.
The question then is, will he leave it at that and say - "we got 20 or 30,000 signatures calling for binding CIR - the Govt. should act on this... The Kiwi Party is the only party that will introduce a bill which would bring in binding CIR" - or will he attempt to somehow pull in another 270,000 signatures in the extra six months he knows is up his sleeve?
Click here for more info and articles on the Kiwi Party and the referendum.
Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?
Reading between the lines of the latest email update from the Campaign for Democracy (previously "The Kiwi Campaign for Democracy"), it is clear that the petition to bring in binding referendums has hit the brick wall of public apathy to this issue. The petition question reads,
“Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?”
The question was approved by the Clerk of Parliament on 17 December, 2009. One year from the initiation of a citizens initiated referendum, the signatures will be required and will be counted by the Clerk's office. The office has a period of three months in which to do this. If the number is found to be insufficient (10% of the voting population, approx. 300,000), the Clerk will allow an additional three months for signatures to be collected, and then re-submitted. Tack on a further three months for the Clerk to tally up the new total, and hey... it's September 2011 already. Two months out from New Zealand's general election.
The update, put out by Larry Baldock (also leader of the Kiwi Party) states,
Yes, it has been a while since you heard from me [Larry Baldock] and the Camapaign4Democracy. Winter is over and the weather much more conducive to signature collecting. Many thanks to those who have faithfully been sending in a few signed petition sheets over the last few months... Please send in any completed forms to P.O Box 9228 Greerton, Tauranga 3142 and I will be able to give an update on totals in the next update."
It sounds like Baldock wants to pull in the last few signatures in the five or six weeks he has left, and then submit them to Parliament, making a public statement about the number collected, and how significant it is to the issue of whether NZ should adopt binding CIRs or not.
The question then is, will he leave it at that and say - "we got 20 or 30,000 signatures calling for binding CIR - the Govt. should act on this... The Kiwi Party is the only party that will introduce a bill which would bring in binding CIR" - or will he attempt to somehow pull in another 270,000 signatures in the extra six months he knows is up his sleeve?
Click here for more info and articles on the Kiwi Party and the referendum.
Friday, 15 October 2010
Vlog 9: Abortion is a Woman's Choice like Rape is a Man's Choice
Does choice have anything to do with the morality of an action (abortion for instance)? In this video I discuss a common misconception about abortion; that it is justified for simply being a choice... It's complicated stuff, but hang on with me!
This is a vlog of my 10 March 2010 blog-post entitled "Abortion is a Woman's Choice. Just Like Rape is a Man's Choice"
In upcoming vlogs I'll be building upon this aspect of the abortion debate, in particular:
Pro-Abortion vs. Pro-Choice: Which is the correct term to use?
Abortion and Rape
This is a vlog of my 10 March 2010 blog-post entitled "Abortion is a Woman's Choice. Just Like Rape is a Man's Choice"
In upcoming vlogs I'll be building upon this aspect of the abortion debate, in particular:
Saturday, 9 October 2010
Democrats: Minimum Wage is "Basic Fairness"
"Republican candidates for Congress are now saying they want to reduce, or even eliminate, the federal minimum wage," he complains. "They're talking about ending a law that protects American workers from unreasonably low wages. It's a basic fairness that some of the people who want to control Congress simply don't understand -- Republicans like Linda McMahon in Connecticut, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and Joe Miller in Alaska.
Minimum wage is far from being a "basic fairness that some Republicans simply don't understand". Condemning "disbelievers" on grounds that they "simply don't understand it" is laughable. The minimum wage exists for the sole purpose of redistributing wealth - something that has become one of the Democrats' most dearly loved principles. Below is a summary of the policy's problems:
- Two people wishing to make a contract are prohibited from doing so. For instance, if someone is searching for a job, and is willing to work for $5/hr, and a business owner is willing to pay him this, the contract cannot proceed because the minimum wage is $12.75/hr (here in New Zealand).
- Young people - historically preferable for low-skilled jobs will find it harder to gain employment. Because with the abolition of the youth wage, employers can hire more experienced workers for the same hourly rate.
- Minimum wage prevents employers from rewarding outstanding employees, because it is designed to cut down the "tall poppies". It achieves this by promoting mediocrity. No longer can employers simply pay staff based on their skills or work ethic. Instead they are forced to pay lower-quality employees at a higher rate than their market value. And the result of this is that the higher-quality employees are paid less than their market value.
- Following on from this: hard-working employees will find it harder to gain a pay-rise as a reward for their effort, as they were either a) started off at their job at an hourly rate above their market value, or b) their employer cannot afford to give a pay rise as he is paying other staff at a rate above their market value.
- Minimum wage increases unemployment by increasing business expenses for employers, thus causing them to find ways of hiring fewer staff to make up for the fact that they are paying above market value for a number of their employees.
- Minimum wage distorts the balance in the market, as it causes the value of resources (i.e. man-hours) to be artificially raised or lowered.
Monday, 27 September 2010
Hey Potplant
So if you are the potter and i am the clay,
you don't gotta answer why you made me this way
but evenso, my mind remains curious,
though others look down, cite me as spurious.
a distressed looking potplant catches my eye,
most of the others are dead and dry.
this growth retains the spark of life,
though all around, surrounded by strife
and plenty within - I daresay it's true,
kicked when it's down, now growing askew.
just want to reach down to show it i care,
but i'd kill it with kindness, i'd interfere.
next to it a multi-tiered collection of dirt,
does it represent nothing, or a picture of hurt?
crowding round, last gasps for life spent,
twisted, wretched branches, hollow and bent.
yet close by in a white box of styrofoam,
many pretty light blue flowers made their home,
plain and yet pleasant, the one lasting truth
all else around, callous, uncouth.
the distressed looking potplant, fighting uphill
i'm lying, admiring, its perseverance and will.
some leaves are yellowed, i don't think there's hope,
yet you strive for the light, with your future - elope.
her roots hang on though the ground is unsteady,
the others gave up, she says, "i'm not ready".
she inspires me with wonder, a reason to fight,
but can i pull through when i'm flying that kite?
you can't safely land if you're not in the air,
oh well, whatever, i don't think i care.
so this one's for God - He is not airy-fairy.
His hand's in Creation, I can see it so clearly.
He knows of this potplant, struggling and striving.
He knows every leaf on that little dumb tree,
so how much more then, does He care for me.
you don't gotta answer why you made me this way
but evenso, my mind remains curious,
though others look down, cite me as spurious.
a distressed looking potplant catches my eye,
most of the others are dead and dry.
this growth retains the spark of life,
though all around, surrounded by strife
and plenty within - I daresay it's true,
kicked when it's down, now growing askew.
just want to reach down to show it i care,
but i'd kill it with kindness, i'd interfere.
next to it a multi-tiered collection of dirt,
does it represent nothing, or a picture of hurt?
crowding round, last gasps for life spent,
twisted, wretched branches, hollow and bent.
yet close by in a white box of styrofoam,
many pretty light blue flowers made their home,
plain and yet pleasant, the one lasting truth
all else around, callous, uncouth.
the distressed looking potplant, fighting uphill
i'm lying, admiring, its perseverance and will.
some leaves are yellowed, i don't think there's hope,
yet you strive for the light, with your future - elope.
her roots hang on though the ground is unsteady,
the others gave up, she says, "i'm not ready".
she inspires me with wonder, a reason to fight,
but can i pull through when i'm flying that kite?
you can't safely land if you're not in the air,
oh well, whatever, i don't think i care.
so this one's for God - He is not airy-fairy.
His hand's in Creation, I can see it so clearly.
He knows of this potplant, struggling and striving.
He knows every leaf on that little dumb tree,
so how much more then, does He care for me.
Friday, 24 September 2010
Hatred & Water-Balloon-Condoms Thrown at March For Lifers in Berlin
Bryan writes,
Besides the 1,800 pro-lifers in attendance; there were hundreds of riot police to protect us from the over 500 pro-abortion protesters who came to interrupt and attempt to attack us.
Our team went early to the site of the march to witness to the pro-abortion protestors and share the Gospel with them. We stood right in the middle of their gathering and just began talking to many of the young people there who seemed to hate us so much.
As the time for the march came closer we made our way to the stage to get prepared for Michel and me to give our talks. I was getting so excited as I was meeting young people from all over the world gathered there to jump start a youth pro-life revolution in Europe.
I was so impressed by the resolve of the pro-lifers as the pro-abortion protesters started to mix into our crowd and begin screaming vulgarities at us. Two lesbians walked to the front of the stage and began to make out in an attempt to shock us; they were just ignored as we kept on with the program.
Police hold the counter-protesters at bay
When I got up to speak the pro-abortion protesters were enraged as they announced an American coming up to speak. When they saw that I looked more like them then the rest of the pro-lifers I think it made them angrier. I shared my testimony about coming to Christ and then an encouraging pro-life message. I fired up the young people, challenging them to make sure that we always have the courage to stand up for Christ and for life.
As the organizers began to pass out white crosses to the pro-life marchers, many on the other side began to steal crosses so they could hold them upside down. As we took formation in the street, the pro-aborts were lining up beside us screaming the most foul and sexual things at the pro-lifers. They were holding the crosses upside down, waving rubber sexual organs and throwing condoms filled with water at us...
Read the full article here.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Vlog 8: Aborting New Zealand
New Zealand's over-65 population is spiraling out of control. By 2026 the number of over-65s will have doubled, leaving the Government and the economy struggling to care for them. But the Government - and New Zealand itself have brought this upon themselves with abortion which has killed 400,000 pre-born Kiwis since 1974.
NZ Herald Article: "Urgent plan needed for over-65s - report", 8 Sept, 2010
NZ Herald Article: "Urgent plan needed for over-65s - report", 8 Sept, 2010
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
The Kiwi Party and Abortion
The Kiwi Party has made itself known as a "Judeo-Christian Values Party" - although upon a cursory glance of their website I couldn't find any reference to this. The party's leader is ex-United Future List MP, Larry Baldock. He is backed up with fellow ex-United Future List MP, Gordon Copeland now serving as Party President, and More FM Radio celebrity, Simon Barnett. The party is strongly pro-life, and I have huge respect for their opposition to abortion. The Kiwi Party has just recently adopted Gordon Copeland's "Abortion (Informed Consent) Amendment" bill.
I am absolutely in favour of what this bill seeks to achieve. It seeks to take an incremental step forward through the provision of information through counselling before the mother makes a final request to be considered for an abortion in accordance with the current Abortion Law. Below is a diagram of the change the amendment would make.
It's a great bill, and you can read an excellent short summary of it here. However, it is not going to go anywhere. In another document entitled "Abortion Law Reform in New Zealand; a Political Strategy", the Kiwi Party outlines its strategy for reforming New Zealand's abortion law for the better by passing the informed consent bill. Coincidentally, the strategy involves getting the Kiwi Party into Parliament. However neither the Kiwi Party, nor any of its candidates will ever enter Parliament again. This is because they are incompetent and unprofessional.
Baldock's referendum to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act (subsequently adopted by the Kiwi Party) was a thinly veiled bid to build the platform necessary to get Larry Baldock back into Parliament in 2008 with the newly formed Kiwi Party. It failed in this objective. Baldock's 2011 Election Bid was to run a referendum seeking to amend New Zealand's law on referendums so that they would be binding. The question read: “Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?” Confusing, huh. Anyway, this referendum also failed in building a strong platform to get Baldock back into Parliament. Last I heard it was 280,000 signatures short of completion, and with only a few months remaining. So what new strategy from the desk of the Kiwi Party? A policy to make a significant improvement in New Zealand's abortion law.
Let's be clear. The law would not restrict any abortions. However through the improved system of counselling, it is strongly likely that the number of abortions in New Zealand would drop significantly. (over 10% I think).
Earlier this year I wrote Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy and Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?, outlining a critical lack of wisdom and integrity in the Kiwi Party. I will be writing further "Referendum Files" shortly. One of the party's key policies embodies the Socialist ideal of wealth-redistribution through an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. There are also major issues with the party's Law and Order policy which I have written about here.
In their political strategy document, they write:
This 8.7% figure, obtained through "independent polling" is old news. The Kiwi Party used it at the last election... and I have no idea who the independent pollsters were, but they didn't quite get it right did they... In the 2005 election Baldock received 3.67% of the vote in his electorate of Tauranga. However you have to get roughly over 40% to win in this electorate. In 2008 he received 5.11% of the vote. That election, the Kiwi Party received 0.54% of the party vote, even with their platform, repealing the Anti-Smacking Law being one of the key election issues. How well are they going to do at the 2011 election where neither abortion nor smacking will be key election issues?
I will be writing more shortly about The Kiwi Party; why they should not run at the next election, and why you shouldn't waste your vote on them.
I am absolutely in favour of what this bill seeks to achieve. It seeks to take an incremental step forward through the provision of information through counselling before the mother makes a final request to be considered for an abortion in accordance with the current Abortion Law. Below is a diagram of the change the amendment would make.
It's a great bill, and you can read an excellent short summary of it here. However, it is not going to go anywhere. In another document entitled "Abortion Law Reform in New Zealand; a Political Strategy", the Kiwi Party outlines its strategy for reforming New Zealand's abortion law for the better by passing the informed consent bill. Coincidentally, the strategy involves getting the Kiwi Party into Parliament. However neither the Kiwi Party, nor any of its candidates will ever enter Parliament again. This is because they are incompetent and unprofessional.
Baldock's referendum to repeal Section 59 of the Crimes Act (subsequently adopted by the Kiwi Party) was a thinly veiled bid to build the platform necessary to get Larry Baldock back into Parliament in 2008 with the newly formed Kiwi Party. It failed in this objective. Baldock's 2011 Election Bid was to run a referendum seeking to amend New Zealand's law on referendums so that they would be binding. The question read: “Should Parliament be required to pass legislation that implements the majority result of a citizens initiated referendum where that result supports a law change?” Confusing, huh. Anyway, this referendum also failed in building a strong platform to get Baldock back into Parliament. Last I heard it was 280,000 signatures short of completion, and with only a few months remaining. So what new strategy from the desk of the Kiwi Party? A policy to make a significant improvement in New Zealand's abortion law.
Let's be clear. The law would not restrict any abortions. However through the improved system of counselling, it is strongly likely that the number of abortions in New Zealand would drop significantly. (over 10% I think).
Earlier this year I wrote Referendum File 1: The Logic of the Campaign for Democracy and Referendum File 2: Can They Be Trusted?, outlining a critical lack of wisdom and integrity in the Kiwi Party. I will be writing further "Referendum Files" shortly. One of the party's key policies embodies the Socialist ideal of wealth-redistribution through an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. There are also major issues with the party's Law and Order policy which I have written about here.
In their political strategy document, they write:
Therefore progress can not be made unless the Kiwi Party or some other Party which is prepared to commit to this issue, is elected to Parliament. The Kiwi Party already has a high recognition factor in New Zealand with an independent poll indicating that 8.7% of voters would “likely” vote for the party if they were confident that it could achieve either 5% of the party vote or one electorate seat, thus ensuring its presence in the next parliament.
This 8.7% figure, obtained through "independent polling" is old news. The Kiwi Party used it at the last election... and I have no idea who the independent pollsters were, but they didn't quite get it right did they... In the 2005 election Baldock received 3.67% of the vote in his electorate of Tauranga. However you have to get roughly over 40% to win in this electorate. In 2008 he received 5.11% of the vote. That election, the Kiwi Party received 0.54% of the party vote, even with their platform, repealing the Anti-Smacking Law being one of the key election issues. How well are they going to do at the 2011 election where neither abortion nor smacking will be key election issues?
I will be writing more shortly about The Kiwi Party; why they should not run at the next election, and why you shouldn't waste your vote on them.
Monday, 20 September 2010
Republicans to Campaign on Federal Abortion Funding?
Just heard from the Manhattan Declaration project that,
This is excellent news. However it will remain to be seen if the Grand Old Party will run with a decent pro-life platform, or if they'll make either promises they intend not to keep, or make promises that offer no genuine improvement to the problem of abortion in the United States.
So many of you emailed the Republican House leader's office last week urging the party not to backtrack on its commitment to life, liberty and marriage that you brought the email servers down. We have just been informed that the Republican leadership WILL now include references to marriage and federal funding of abortion in their election agenda.
This is excellent news. However it will remain to be seen if the Grand Old Party will run with a decent pro-life platform, or if they'll make either promises they intend not to keep, or make promises that offer no genuine improvement to the problem of abortion in the United States.
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Vlog 6 - Christchurch Earthquake 4 Sept. 2010
My day in Christchurch on the day of the second biggest earthquake of our country which shook up the whole city, leaving many homeless, including a cat who seemed quite content to find a seat in some rubble. This video includes previously unseen footage and photos and is a first-hand account of the catastrophic event.
My follow up video to this vlog is entitled "Christchurch Earthquake: Thank God Nobody was Killed...?", and is a quick look at the deeper side to the 4/9/10 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. More photos are here.
Previous vlogs here.
My follow up video to this vlog is entitled "Christchurch Earthquake: Thank God Nobody was Killed...?", and is a quick look at the deeper side to the 4/9/10 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. More photos are here.
Previous vlogs here.
Vlog 7 - Christchurch Earthquake: Thank God Nobody was Killed...?
Why do Christians say "Thank God nobody was killed in the earthquake"? What do they mean... or do they even know what they mean? This video is a quick look at the deeper side to the 4/9/10 earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. This video is a follow-up to my last vlog entitled Christchurch Earthquake 4 Sept. 2010 in which I discussed my day in Christchurch on the day of the second biggest earthquake of our country.
Previous vlogs here.
Previous vlogs here.
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Vlog 5 - It's a Silent Issue
The sponsor of New Zealand's latest "Abortion on Demand" bill, Steve Chadwick believes that there aren't enough abortions in New Zealand. What's going on behind the scenes here?
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Vlog 4 - "If You Don't Like Abortion, Don't Have One"
"If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one!" This is a statement which is made frequently by those in the pro-abortion movement. In this video I discuss what an absolute pathetic excuse for an argument that it is.
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Vlog 3 - "Men Shouldn't Force Their Opinion About Abortion on Women"
Some in the pro-abortion movement make the statement - "what right do men think they have to force their views about abortion on women?" In this video I discuss the two major reasons why men are justified in speaking against abortion.
Friday, 27 August 2010
Abortion – why it needs to be legal” Article Makes Leaps in Logic
Cross-posted from the Exposing ALRANZ blog, below is a fisking of a recent article making the rounds in the pro-abortion blogosphere.
On 13 August 2010, Julie Fairey of The Hand Mirror Blog and Mothers For Choice wrote an article summarising the talk she gave that day on campus at Auckland University, entitled "Abortion: Why it Needs to be Legal". The talk was organised by Kristy Kearny, Alana Marie Chang and Soraiya Daud, leaders of the group, Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland and the Campus Feminist Collective. Steph of the LadyNews blog states that the article is "a beautifully structured argument for why abortion needs to be legal", however this is incorrect as I will demonstrate below.
Fairey sums up her talk as follows:
1. We don’t yet live in a world where we have full control of our fertility
She argues that "A world without abortion will only be possible when we can have full control of our fertility." I could equally state that "A world without car crashes will only be possible when we can have full control of our driving skills." This in no way backs up the claim that therefore, car crashes are ok since they're going to happen anyway. The same can be applied to abortion. The fact that women don't have full control of fertility (Fairey cites rape as one example, and I completely agree with her on this), in no way lends itself to justifying abortion.
Fairey goes on to state that women can only have full control of their fertility if contraceptives (i.e. condoms) are 1) Free, 2) Easy to get, 3) Comfortable to request and use, and 4) effective. Again, this is poor reasoning. I could state that drivers are only going to have full control of their cars once cars are free, easy to get, comfortable to request, and safe... It doesn't make sense at all.
She also states that women will only have control over their fertility once we live in a world with positive empowering attitudes to sex, and a world that has support and respect for parents. Fairey is absolutely entitled to her opinion - but this is absolutely unsubstantiated - women can choose whether reproduction takes place, regardless of attitudes to sex or parenting.
And if not... just kill the foetus. The "every child a wanted child" argument falls down because it is based purely on the subjective value of life that adults project onto the as yet unborn child.
The only time that a woman loses control of her fertility, is when she loses her reproductive rights (in the case of rape), where conception takes place against her will...
Continue Reading
On 13 August 2010, Julie Fairey of The Hand Mirror Blog and Mothers For Choice wrote an article summarising the talk she gave that day on campus at Auckland University, entitled "Abortion: Why it Needs to be Legal". The talk was organised by Kristy Kearny, Alana Marie Chang and Soraiya Daud, leaders of the group, Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland and the Campus Feminist Collective. Steph of the LadyNews blog states that the article is "a beautifully structured argument for why abortion needs to be legal", however this is incorrect as I will demonstrate below.Fairey sums up her talk as follows:
1. We don’t yet live in a world where we have full control of our fertility
She argues that "A world without abortion will only be possible when we can have full control of our fertility." I could equally state that "A world without car crashes will only be possible when we can have full control of our driving skills." This in no way backs up the claim that therefore, car crashes are ok since they're going to happen anyway. The same can be applied to abortion. The fact that women don't have full control of fertility (Fairey cites rape as one example, and I completely agree with her on this), in no way lends itself to justifying abortion.
Fairey goes on to state that women can only have full control of their fertility if contraceptives (i.e. condoms) are 1) Free, 2) Easy to get, 3) Comfortable to request and use, and 4) effective. Again, this is poor reasoning. I could state that drivers are only going to have full control of their cars once cars are free, easy to get, comfortable to request, and safe... It doesn't make sense at all.
She also states that women will only have control over their fertility once we live in a world with positive empowering attitudes to sex, and a world that has support and respect for parents. Fairey is absolutely entitled to her opinion - but this is absolutely unsubstantiated - women can choose whether reproduction takes place, regardless of attitudes to sex or parenting.
"I’m talking about being able to be sure, when that little stick shows you you’re pregnant, that any child that arises could have a safe, healthy home to live in, would have more than enough food and clothing and books and love, and so much more, from the people and the society around it."
And if not... just kill the foetus. The "every child a wanted child" argument falls down because it is based purely on the subjective value of life that adults project onto the as yet unborn child.
The only time that a woman loses control of her fertility, is when she loses her reproductive rights (in the case of rape), where conception takes place against her will...
Continue Reading
Thursday, 26 August 2010
Vlog 2: Ultrasound and the Abortion Industry
In Wairarapa, New Zealand, mothers seeking an abortion must be offered to see the ultrasound scan of their pre-born baby. But 98% are saying "no thanks" - what's going on here?
The article on this issue is here.
For my last vlog on "Aborting Cows", click here. For previous vlogs, click here.
The article on this issue is here.
For my last vlog on "Aborting Cows", click here. For previous vlogs, click here.
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Vlog 1: Aborting Cows
In New Zealand approximately 200,000 calves are aborted every year - so that calving happens all at the same time. But where's the outrage about the 18,000 human babies who are aborted every year?
This is my first shot at vlogging - we'll see how it goes.
This is my first shot at vlogging - we'll see how it goes.
Sunday, 27 June 2010
House Minority Leader John Boehner at NRLC
Republican Minority House Leader John Boehner speaking at NRLC.
"Americans love life and we love freedom - they're both intertwined in the American character - without respect for life, freedom is in jeopardy. When we confirm the dignity of life, we affirm our commitment to freedom. There's nothing more defenceless, more innocent - than an unborn baby. If you believe in a right to life, then being quiet isn't good enough - we don't have luxury of being quiet.
...Barack Obama spoke at a PP convention promising support of the Freedom of Choice Act - during his first week in office, 36 Republican Congressman including Boehner wrote to Obama asking him to use his presidency to use initiatives that bring Americans together, not drive them apart - they asked him to withdraw his support from FOCA. They got no response. ...In the 18 months since the letter was sent, we've got our answer - the legislation has been implemented, step by tragic step."
During the presentation of the National Right to Life Legislative Leadership Award to Boehner, an old man stood up and started yelling, trying to ask the Minority Leader a question - he shouted "God strike you dead!" at Darla St. Martin who was emceeing the session. Officials got him seated. However after the applause as he was walking out he started screaming again about how the Republican party lets down the pro-life movement, "See with your eyes..." He also claimed that when Darla asked him to speak to Boehner later that she was breaking the First Amendment. I am fairly confident that he is a strongly anti-incrementalist pro-lifer, possibly associated with American Right to Life and the Personhood movement.
However a very good session over all. You can read Boehner's full speech here.
"Americans love life and we love freedom - they're both intertwined in the American character - without respect for life, freedom is in jeopardy. When we confirm the dignity of life, we affirm our commitment to freedom. There's nothing more defenceless, more innocent - than an unborn baby. If you believe in a right to life, then being quiet isn't good enough - we don't have luxury of being quiet.
...Barack Obama spoke at a PP convention promising support of the Freedom of Choice Act - during his first week in office, 36 Republican Congressman including Boehner wrote to Obama asking him to use his presidency to use initiatives that bring Americans together, not drive them apart - they asked him to withdraw his support from FOCA. They got no response. ...In the 18 months since the letter was sent, we've got our answer - the legislation has been implemented, step by tragic step."
During the presentation of the National Right to Life Legislative Leadership Award to Boehner, an old man stood up and started yelling, trying to ask the Minority Leader a question - he shouted "God strike you dead!" at Darla St. Martin who was emceeing the session. Officials got him seated. However after the applause as he was walking out he started screaming again about how the Republican party lets down the pro-life movement, "See with your eyes..." He also claimed that when Darla asked him to speak to Boehner later that she was breaking the First Amendment. I am fairly confident that he is a strongly anti-incrementalist pro-lifer, possibly associated with American Right to Life and the Personhood movement.
However a very good session over all. You can read Boehner's full speech here.
2,000 Pages of Really Bad Stuff
General Session on Day 3, "2,000 Pages Plus of Really Bad Stuff” of the National Right to Life Convention featuring Douglas Johnson speaking on abortion coverage and Burke Balch, J.D. speaking on rationing in the Health Care Act.
Douglas Johnson is speaking on abortion coverage in the Health Care Act.
One of the ways the pro-abortion lobby has always sought to increase the number of abortions is to have government subsidies for abortion. It is estimated that there are over one million people alive today because of the Hyde amendment. They think that's a bad thing; we think that's a good thing. Within 3yrs of Roe v. Wade (1973), the Govt. was paying for 300,000 abortions/yr - the Courts found that this was a just application of the law. In 1976, Hyde amendment came in prohibiting Federal money going towards abortions. This amendment expires every year and so comes under attack but needs to be renewed every year.
In 2007 Barack Obama was asked how "reproductive healthcare" would be covered in the Health Care Bill. “In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. It is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose… It will be a plan that will provide ALL essential services, including reproductive services."
The Executive Order which is claimed to prevent abortion funding. USA Today reported that both sides of the debate agree that the order was meaningless. National Right to Life Committee's Douglas Johnson referred to the order as "a transparent political fig leaf," and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood called it a "symbolic gesture".
Burke Balch, J.D. is speaking on rationing in the new Health Care Act. Federal law now limits what individuals are allowed to spend out of their own funds for their health care insurance. "We should not have a two tier health care system." Do you even things out by helping those who can't afford adequate health care by limiting the health care available to those who can afford it? "This is what the Act does."
Rationing Procedure:
Govt. website box states: "about 25% of Medicare dollars are spent on people in their last 60 days of life" - but we don't know when people are going to die, we're trying to save them. "Toward the end of life, too many people receive ineffective, expensive medical treatments" - California Health Care Foundation
Health care spending as a percentage of personal consumption expenditures has been rising steadily since 1940. Also, private food, clothing and shelter expenses have been steadily dropping. The reason that we've been able to put more money into healthcare to date, is that we've put less resources into other things. America could ensure decent health care for all. Currently we have private sector cost-shifting - it imperfectly covers people who are uninsured. "We could achieve good healthcare for all without rationing." The fundamental, worst elements are not going to come into affect until 2014. Need a pro-repeal president and senate and 60 senators to beat a filibuster (41 Senators). "We are not hopeless. What we have to do now is educate Americans about the grave danger this law poses to our family members."
One of the ways the pro-abortion lobby has always sought to increase the number of abortions is to have government subsidies for abortion. It is estimated that there are over one million people alive today because of the Hyde amendment. They think that's a bad thing; we think that's a good thing. Within 3yrs of Roe v. Wade (1973), the Govt. was paying for 300,000 abortions/yr - the Courts found that this was a just application of the law. In 1976, Hyde amendment came in prohibiting Federal money going towards abortions. This amendment expires every year and so comes under attack but needs to be renewed every year.
In 2007 Barack Obama was asked how "reproductive healthcare" would be covered in the Health Care Bill. “In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. It is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose… It will be a plan that will provide ALL essential services, including reproductive services."
The Executive Order which is claimed to prevent abortion funding. USA Today reported that both sides of the debate agree that the order was meaningless. National Right to Life Committee's Douglas Johnson referred to the order as "a transparent political fig leaf," and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood called it a "symbolic gesture".
Rationing Procedure:
- Independent Payment Advisory Commission. It's aim is to push private healthcare spending down, so that it does not keep up with the rate of medical inflation. Recommednations every two years. Department of Health and Human Services is going to impose "quality and efficiency" standards... "under what circumstances is it efficient/appropriate for someone to receive a kidney transplant?". HC providers must comply with these guidelines (caps on private spending on healthcare), or else they will lose insurance contracts. This limits and micro-manages the healthcare you can get.
- Medicare Limits - $529 cut from Medicare. Will the govt. allow senior citizens to make up the difference from their own private funds? Currently older Americans are allowed to add their own money if they choose, in order to get insurance plans less likely to ration - these are known as Medicare Private Advantage Plans. However under the Obama health law, HHS given standardless discretion to reject any Medicare advantage plan.
- Exchange Limits on What People Can Pay for Insurance. First state-based insurance exchanges. Govt. officials will exclude health insurers whose plans inside or outside the exchange allow private citizens to spend whatever govt. officials think is "excessive or unjustified" amount on their own health care insurance.
- Shared Decisionmaking. Funding to non govt. groups to develop "patient decision-making aids" to help patients, caregivers or authorised representatives to decided with their health care provider, what plans are best for them. They're going to "establish regional shared decision making resource centers to provide technical assistance to providers to develop and disseminate best practices". In other words, re-education...
Govt. website box states: "about 25% of Medicare dollars are spent on people in their last 60 days of life" - but we don't know when people are going to die, we're trying to save them. "Toward the end of life, too many people receive ineffective, expensive medical treatments" - California Health Care Foundation
Health care spending as a percentage of personal consumption expenditures has been rising steadily since 1940. Also, private food, clothing and shelter expenses have been steadily dropping. The reason that we've been able to put more money into healthcare to date, is that we've put less resources into other things. America could ensure decent health care for all. Currently we have private sector cost-shifting - it imperfectly covers people who are uninsured. "We could achieve good healthcare for all without rationing." The fundamental, worst elements are not going to come into affect until 2014. Need a pro-repeal president and senate and 60 senators to beat a filibuster (41 Senators). "We are not hopeless. What we have to do now is educate Americans about the grave danger this law poses to our family members."
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Live-Blogging from the National Right to Life Convention
Currently in Communications 201: "Putting Communication Skills Into Action Through Events and Advertising" with Derrick Jones and Cheryl Ciamarra. Picking up on many tips and tricks for handling media and public relations - will be useful to take back to New Zealand to benefit Prolife NZ. Caught up with Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com today which was great. Hoping to catch up with some more pro-lifers tonight in town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)