Jivin J’s Life Links 1-28-10
by JivinJ
News of the ad had a predictably Pavlovian effect on the Left. Since the spot combines many of the elements that the “educated class” most detests about America — frank expressions of Christianity, pro-life advocacy, home-schoolers, football hero worship and the South — they were incensed that cash-strapped CBS would take Focus on the Family’s money….
Jehmu Greene, head of the Women’s Media Center, is leading a drive to punish CBS for airing the ad, which she claims is “sexist.”
A little decoding is necessary here.
In terms of Super Bowl ads, “sexist” is code for “anti-abortion.” But “sexist” does not apply to parading women around in their underpants to sell beer.
Got it?
I decided to visit the Gallery after attending the March for Life the day before. There was an exhibit on processes of photography before the digital age that I hoped would confirm me in my refusal to give up on film. After searching my bag, the two guards at the Gallery told me, “You’re good to go in, but first you need to remove that pro-life pin.” He was indicating the small lime green pin with the message “impact73.org” and the silhouette of a small hand inside that of a larger hand that I had attached to the lapel of my coat. The pin, they informed me, was a “religious symbol” and a symbol of a particular political cause and it could not be worn inside a federal building. Why, I asked, can I not wear a religious or political symbol inside a federal building?
In the past, normal cells have been coaxed into changing function by first turning them into “induced” stem cells.
These have similar properties to stem cells taken from embryos, giving them the potential to become any kind of tissue in the body.
The new research went a step further by transforming mouse skin cells straight into functional neurons, while by-passing the stem cell process. .
There is now a web show called “Bump +“ in which the viewers apparently choose what the actors in this fake reality show do with their pregnancies.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Did I miss it?
Did Meghan Duke say whether or not she complied with the museum guards directive or did she refuse to capitulate to their arbirtrary censorship.
I was hoping for a ‘Rosa Parks’ moment.
yor bro ken
Completely and utterly bogus. You, as a citizen, don’t give up your right to freedom of speech when you enter a federal building. Ha – if that’s the case, none of the speakers in any building would be able to express themselves.
The museum guard, their superior and the senior supervisor should have been summoned, and recorded/witnessed.
It’s funny how the state is stepping on the church, though the pro-life cause is not specifically religious – or any more so than the absolute Obama worship going on at the SOTU speech last night!
Female elites generally don’t like football, so I doubt if they’d be watching the Superbowl in the first place.
I think the guards’ behavior toward Ms. Duke offend us all, and more importantly, offend the Constitution of the United States. Someone should speak to their supervisor, and if that doesn’t work, sue em. I’d suggest a call to the ACLU.
No Ken, I read her article, and she never did say if she complied or not.
Would nuns be asked to remove their habits???
Ha Maria! Good point! I hope she files a lawsuit over this. That is how we need to fight back.
On a wonderful wonderful note I was crying in the shower today just praying to God to bless me with a child. I was also praying for my cousin and his wife who have been married 12 years and can’t conceive and the doctors don’t know why. I also prayed for my friend who had a miscarriage three years ago that scared her husband so badly he said NO KIDS. Then he recently had a change of heart and I was praying my friend would conceive quickly and it would all turn out all right. I was just crying and praying, crying and praying.
I went to lunch with her today and she sat down and grinned from ear to ear and handed me an ad for cribs and said “Which one do you like? Cause I AM PREGNANT!”
She is three weeks. I told her about her baby’s heart starting to beat about now and she listened in excited wonder. I felt like it was such a quick answer to prayer and it encouraged me that maybe I too would soon be pregnant. While I was praying for her God was already forming her child’s little body.
Pray for my friend because she is bleeding. The doctor performed an ultrasound and said it all looks okay and not to fret but she is understandably concerned.
We surmised if the baby was a boy or girl and talked about all things baby. It was really exciting. I remember that special time in my life of finding out I was pregnant. Its scary and wonderful at the same time.
Sydney:
It’s all in God’s timing and it will come about. He has planned this from the foundations of the earth.
Remember, He gives us the desires of our heart.
Jill,
New analysis of teen pregnancy and abortion rates and ratios by geographic and demographic group at the economist and the genetics blog gnxp.com. These are interesting analyses because they are not so agenda driven as Guttmacher reports and they are done by folks who actually know how to plot and analyze data to find trends rather than just spin them.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/teen_pregnancy_and_abortion
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2010/01/teen-birthrates-and-abortion-rates-over.php
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2010/01/maps-of-white-teen-birthrate-and.php
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2010/01/red-state-blue-state-teen-birthrate.php
Hal:
Your comment is absurd!
Why? Because you supported a President who hired Janet Napolean (yes, the little general), who defamed and slandered all of us pro-lifers as terrorists.
At least be consistent Mr. Robin Hood! Do us a favor and tell us how we can bring a class action suit against Ms. Jano.
Hippie,
I saw that article but found it hard to read.
High five, Chris Arsenault. As I put it in my blog:
Today, we get this article about a woman who was told she couldn’t enter the National Gallery of Art because she was wearing a pro-life pin, on the grounds that it was a “religious symbol.” The pin in fact contained no religious symbols or text, so the guards must have been operating on the wrongheaded assumption that the pro-life movement is inherently religious.
Phil, I don’t care too much about name calling, or even labels. I’m sure some government official somewhere has called me things just as bad.
But having government security guards make someone remove a pin in a public building because of the message on that pin is an obvious and outrageous first amendment violation. I’m sure President Obama, as a former professor of constitutional law, would agree with me. and all nine supreme court justices too. This isn’t a gray area, it’s textbook first amendment law.
HAL,
I agree. No thinking american with a copy of the constitution and a dictionary could arrive at the same conclusion these ‘politically correct’ security guards reached.
I do not agree with your conclusion that B.O. would necessarily share your fair minded view.
The constitution only has value to B.O. when it suits his purposes.
It is as disposbable to B.O. as the ‘truth’.
yor bro ken
Ken, I know you have some policy differences with our President, but there is no reason to conclude he would support the acts of these guards.
You couldn’t pass the bar without some basic understanding of the first amendment, or teach Con Law.
Speaking of Tim Tebow, check this short video out:
http://tinyurl.com/y92fowf
It’s awesome, something Tebow did last month for a special young woman (and big fan) whom he had recently met. What a classy guy.
This just in:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0128101cigs1.html
False Rape Claim Over Bad Sex
Cops: Tennessee women solicited cigarettes in exchange for liaison
JANUARY 28–Two Tennessee women who accused a man of rape have admitted to cops that they had consensually agreed to sex with him in exchange for a pack of cigarettes.
After recanting the rape claim, Alexander told cops that they accused the man “because they didn’t enjoy the sex,” according to a sheriff’s news release.
Police have not identified the accused man, who still could be charged with solicitation in connection with the sex-for-cigarettes arrangement.
————————————————–
The man is considering filing a slander suit against the two women because he says, “I have my reputation to consider.”
“It was all a very nasty proposition.”
“Everyone knows it is a socially unacceptable addiction” and he said, “I was looking for a reason to quit.”.
In retrospect, the man said he considered his interaction with the two lasses to be very effective aversion therapy.
He may give up smoking as well.
He says he asked the ladies if they smoke AFTER having sex and they said, “We don’t know cuz we have never looked.”
It all went downhill from there.
yor bro ken
Posted by: Hal at January 28, 2010 10:00 PM
“You couldn’t pass the bar without some basic understanding of the first amendment, or teach Con Law.”
—————————————————
HAL,
I am not saying B.O. is ignorant concerning the constitution.
I am saying, B.O., like the ACLU, only cares about the constitution when it helps them advance their shared leftist humanist agendas.
When it becomes a hindrance, then it is only an obstacle to be overcome, circumvented or subverted.
You choose to trust B.O. and give him the benefit of the doubt whenever he says or does something that contradicts what he has already said.
I choose to dis-trust B.O. because of those same contradictions.
It is one thing for B.O. to be ‘mistaken’.
We all make mistakes. But B.O. even has difficulties in acknowledging his errors.
It is another thing when B.O. ‘LIES’ to the American people.
If and when B.O. actually does something praiseworthy I will acknowledge it.
I did give him credit for at least saying the right things the right way after the ‘fruit of the boom’ underwear bomber incident.
(Acutally I gave TOTUS the credit for providing the language.)
I did give B.O. credit for getting out front on the relief efforts after the eartquake in Haiti.
At the very least B.O. said the right things. He behaved ‘presidentially’.
But then B.O. bitch slapped the SCOTUS and did it during a internationally televised speech because he was unhappy with one of their most recent decisions.
[At least B.O. did not accuse them of behaving ‘stupidly’ like he did the Harvard police.]
Can you give me some examples where another sitting president has ever done that?
yor bro ken