Saudi Arabia an enemy of the United States?

In 2001/2002 we hit Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban for aiding and abetting Al Qaida and for hosting Osama Bin Laden after the attacks on New York City, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania on September 11th 2001. We then went on to invade Iraq. This Iraq invasion had no constitutional reasoning and in my opinion was wrong.

Going back in time to the first Gulf war of 1990/Jan 1991, Iraq was no tactical, operational or strategic threat to the United States and we had no constitutional reason to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. This was a Muslim problem not an American problem. Osama Bin Laden offered up his Mujahedeen fighters to Saudi Arabia to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi forces but the Saudi’s declined his offer. They decided instead to let American and European forces to shed blood in their place not Muslim blood. I was there in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, forward deployed with and supporting fast attack submarines and SEAL units in this endeavor from 1990-1993.

Lets go back to the events after 9/11 2001. After we secured Afghanistan in 2002 and created conditions for free elections in October 2004 we then should have left Afghanistan our mission accomplished as per Article 2, Section 8 of the Constitution. I think after Afghanistan we should have then over thrown the leadership in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia not Iraq. That’s quite a strong statement to make but I justify what I say with this. Lets go forward in time to the present month Decembers 2013.

On December 19th 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the 2005 Federal Court decision that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was exempt from any civil lawsuits arising from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The 9/11 families and insurance companies are now able to continue forward with legal action against the Saudi Kingdom. Why though would the US government protect Saudi Arabia from civil legal actions resulting from 9/11 ? Good question. Perhaps it was because Saudi Arabia not Iraq that is the enemy of the United States but we must be denied this information to protect those decision makers from prosecution who have inflicted so much pain and suffering on the our military forces and our economy by invading Iraq and not addressing the real problem. KSA !

From the intelligence gathered some of which obtained allegedly from the CIA, Saudi Arabia and the Saudi High Commission knowingly provided the terrorist group Al Qaeda with funds and other support, that helped them carry out the 9/11 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.

It would appear that the leadership of Saudi Arabia is our enemy not the people of Iraq. Iraq and Iran fought an 8 year war without American interference and we should have stayed out of Kuwait too in 1991. It was not our problem but Saudi Arabia made it our problem. We fell into the trap and did not follow the Constitution which tells us not to meddle in the affairs of foreign nations. We just can’t stop being the worlds Police department.

Thomas H. Kean was the Chair and Lee H. Hamilton the Vice Chair of the committee investigating the 9/11 attacks. Former Senators Bob Kerrey (D-Nebraska) and Bob Graham (D- Florida) in December 2012 both voiced their concerns about Saudi involvement in 9/11. They submitted affidavits in this case in 2012, stating that a Saudi government agent, along with other Saudi officials, played a key role during the lead-up to the attacks. You will also recall that all of the hijackers except two came from Saudi Arabia. Imagine that. We save Saudi Arabia’s backside from a potential invasion from Iraq in 1991 and they pay us back by allegedly funding the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. We should listen to our Founding Fathers and stay out of foreign nations squabbles and wars.

Senator Bob Graham, in the New York Times, said “I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” in his affidavit, citing, among other things, the San Diego case of Saudi government Omar al Bayoumi, who provided direct assistance to two of the 9/11 hijackers.

I want the Congress of the United States to now force the release of these censored/classified 28 pages from the Congressional Joint Inquiry. These classified documents reportedly deal with Saudi financing and support for the 9/11 hijackers. They will help the families of 9/11 recover financial damages from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and let the chips fall where they may in regards to future US relations with this Muslim country that hates Israel.

Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the attacks on our nation on September 11th 2001 would thus explain why they dumped all of their US Treasury bonds the day before the attack on September 10th 2001. This sell off was stopped when on the morning of 9/11 2001 all the phone lines to Wall Street and the Stock Exchange where cut when the second jet hit Tower II.

The Saudi’s, perhaps being complicit in the attack on the United States on 9/11 by backing and funding Al Qaeda would explain why they just lobbied President Obama the Kenyan Muslim to once again try and use our military but this time as Al Quadas’ mercenaries to take out President Assad in Syria. Saudi Arabia in my opinion is the head of the snake and British intelligence services and Iranian intelligence officers were also probably aware of the Saudi involvement in funding the attack on the United States.

We are in a war on terror partly because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the Saudi’s did not want Muslim blood shed to fix this problem. The Saudi’s used our boys and girls in our military to be their protector which has now made us the target of Al Qaeda. President Carters weakness in 1979 created these conditions for the original Russian invasion of Afghanistan and thus Al Qaeda was born.

We have no reason to be in Afghanistan, we have no reason to be in Iraq, we have no reason to be in the Sudan, Obama had no Congressional authority when he ordered the tomahawk missile attack on Libya an impeachable offense and we have no reason to buy oil from the Middle East. We have more than enough here in the United States.

We must replace our government on November 4th 2014 with one that is able to follow the Constitution. We must stay out of foreign entanglements unless its a direct threat to us and we must prosecute President Obama for crimes against the US Constitution.

We must stop protecting US – Saudi relations and expose the truth about the Saudi’s involvement in creating a ten year war in the Middle East that cost us trillions of dollars, and one that created a 23 year war on terror since 1990 that has cost us thousands of American lives not to mention the veterans now affected with PTSD and lost limbs etc.

A few days ago the Congress and the Senate repaid veterans who have shed their blood defending our nation by cutting their pensions. The Congress / Senate should be ashamed of themselves. I demand that they release and declassify the 28 pages of Saudi complicity in 9/11, lest they forget that the 4th plane that went down in Pennsylvania was meant for them.

We will remember who voted to cut the pay of the military veteran stuck in the wheelchair, hobbling on the crutches and who hides in his or her house afraid to live life because of the experiences he or she has endured to keep these bastard politicians free and Saudi Arabian government rich and prosperous. God Bless America.

God Responds to Lawsuit Against the Word “Sin”

america duck yeah

For a larger view click on image. Courtesy of The Peoples Cube.

“I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.” – Intolerant, bigoted hick, Phil Robertson

With the fires barely extinguished on their Barilla pasta boxes, GLAAD has found a new victim to harass: Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty.

GLAAD’s beef with Phil is that Phil’s Bible says the gay lifestyle is “sinful.” Phil does not use the New Progressive Bible co-authored by GLAAD and other liberals, but instead chooses to study the outdated traditional Bible.

This is a big deal, because everyone in this country must have a religion that embraces gayness. New, approved Groupthink™ teaches that as long as the parties involved LOVE each other, it doesn’t matter what God says. All religions must comply to receive tax-exempt status (Muslims excluded).

Phil calmly responded, “I didn’t write the Bible. If you have a problem with the Bible, take it up with the Lord.”

GLAAD then filed an Offensive Religion lawsuit against God for the continued H8 and bigotry implied in the word “sin.” They released the following statement:

“We want God to stop smiting us and our lifestyle. We have dealt with the smiting for centuries and we are done – DONE! God’s orders are very discriminatory and do not progress with the changing times. His morals are inflexible and rigid.”

After the Colorado bakers were forced by the courts to make a cake for a gay wedding, GLAAD was hopeful that the courts could also force God to make a new Bible.

GLAAD asked to be compensated with a new kinder, gentler version of the Bible – novelized over centuries by multiple authors – with a 10% tithe going to sex-change charities.

God, a very high-tech deity, responded to GLAAD through email with an updated PDF of a form that used to circulate around the internet. The People’s Cube was able to get a copy of GLAAD’s response through the Freedom of Information Act:


Obviously, God is being non-compliant, which presents a problem. If God does not show up in court, the NSA has been authorized to track down God’s IP address through the PDF upload, and bring him in to answer for the global crime of calling gayness a “sin.”

We expect GLAAD will have their panties in a bunch, no matter what the outcome.

EDITORS NOTE: Further investigation has discovered that the PDF submitted by God contains layers that are not consistent with technology used at the time of the writing of the Bible, as well as the fact that back flaps may be the reason behind GLAAD’s panties-in-a-bunch problem. This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Miss Duck Dynasty? Try QUACK DYNASTY with the Obamas

Since A&E’s Duck Dynasty proved to be a lot more popular with Americans than their messianic president, the A&E Network is now working on a substitute series that will be just like the indefinitely suspended Duck Dynasty, only with the Obamas – a progressive Washington family running a growing government business out of the White House while pretending to have American values.

David Axelrod says about the new show, “If this doesn’t improve the President’s failing ratings, nothing will.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column with graphics originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Like Nixon, Obama Must Be Forced to Resign

A December 17 Reuters article was titled, “Obama’s Current Approval Rating Is The Ugliest Since Nixon.”

“President Barack Obama is ending his fifth year in office with the lowest approval ratings at this point in the presidency since President Richard Nixon, according to a new Washington Post/ABC poll released Tuesday.”

Nixon was forced to resign on April 22, 1974 after two long years that followed the revelations about Watergate, a break-in of the Democratic Party offices in Washington, DC. The backlash against the horrors of Obamacare, concerns about the “deal” with Iran, and a succession of scandals from Fast and Furious to Benghazi, have raised fear and anger over his judgment, competence, and behavior in office.

Having lived through the years that led to Nixon’s resignation, I am seeing the same national resistance that Obama’s five years in office have led to. Nixon was never a “popular” President, widely seen as “Tricky Dick”, but like Obama, he was twice elected to the office. His Vice President, Gerald Ford, who assumed the presidency was defeated by Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and, four years later, an unhappy electorate defeated Carter and elected Ronald Reagan who would serve two terms. Even the popular Bill Clinton faced impeachment.

Not since the days of the Great Depression in the 1930s have Americans endured an economy that has failed to overcome slow growth despite Obama’s full first term in office and another year in his second term.

Ignoring the central role of a free market prolongs bad economic conditions and high taxation to maintain an ever-expanding central government led to big problems for European nations and promises the same—or worse—for the U.S.

When you add in the increased debt imposed in Obama’s first term you are looking at the road to ruin. Blaming “millionaires and billionaires” or “income inequality” is the very essence of communism. It is a rejection of our capitalistic economic system.

Financial ruin for America is embedded in its huge debt, its deficits, and its multi-trillions of dollars in unfunded debt that already insolvent Social Security and Medicare programs represent. And Medicare was looted to fund Obamacare!

The destruction of our healthcare system, one sixth of the nation’s economy, is widely regarded as a disaster and it bears the President’s name. Passed late at night prior to Christmas in 2009 and signed into law by Barack Obama, Obamacare is distinguished by the lies the President told all Americans about their right to keep their healthcare insurance plans, retain their personal physicians, and see their costs reduced. It has done the opposite and it is impossible to believe the President did not know this would occur.

The nation has reached a point when the President must be told to resign.

Whether a Congress, also held in extraordinary low esteem, can or will do this is unknown. While I have said in the past that Obama cannot be removed by impeachment, I now believe that if the House would initiate impeachment proceedings that in itself would focus public attention, for example, on the President’s excessive use of executive orders to by-pass Congress and his unconstitutional altering–tweaking–of the Obamacare law.

His first term was filled with scandals that included using the IRS for political gain. His role in dragging down the nation’s international position as an exemplar and protector of freedom has made the world less safe. These and other issues need a review and discussion that would not occur in the mainstream press in any other way.

This isn’t about a President who authorized a break-in. This is about a President who is a current and future threat to the Constitution, the nation’s military strength, and the restoration of its economy.

This is about a President who can use existing laws to declare martial law based on a manufactured crisis. Existing law would permit him to seize control of all aspects of life in America.

The nation’s mainstream print and broadcast media is showing signs of disillusionment, but not enough to abandon a President they have supported with deliberately biased reporting.

Complicating a demand for his resignation is a divided Republican Party whose elites have rejected the Tea Party movement that has already elected a number of members to Congress. Many find little to differentiate the GOP from the Democratic Party, but there are differences and the House of Representatives is proof of that.

Many Americans sense that the nation is at a very dangerous point.

Dramatic action is needed. A demand for Obama’s resignation via petitions and other measures is needed to save America from the worst President ever elected to that office.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Israel: The Masada Paradigm

During my 2012 trip to Israel I visited many historical sites. One site that struck me was Masada (Hebrew for fortress). Masada embodies the spirit of Israel. It is located in the Southeastern part of Israel near the Dead Sea. Masada is both a historical site and symbol of Israel’s current plight.

Israel finds itself a fortress in the Middle East surrounded by those wishing it harm just as Masada was a safe haven and fortress for Sicarii rebels and Jewish families fleeing the Roman invasion and sacking of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Today many Jewish families are fleeing to Israel from places like Ethiopia, the Ukraine and Europe to find security.

Security is paramount to all Israelis.

What many in America and the media do not understand, is how important security is to those living in Israel — including Arab Israelis. Dr. Reuven Hazan, Director of the Political Science Department at Hebrew University, addressed us on the last day of my trip to Israel. Dr. Hazan explained that Israel consists of two camps. Both agree that security is paramount but each approaches the security issue differently. One camp believes that the land taken during the 1967 war is needed to provide a buffer against future attacks. The other believes the land must be returned to gain peace.

Over the short 65-year history of Israel there have been five conservative prime ministers according to Dr. Hazan. The most recent two are Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu. Many believe that the two camps are separated by an insurmountable chasm on the issue of security. Dr. Hazan says that is not true. In fact one camp has been moving to the other camp’s position that land for peace is a viable national security strategy. He pointed out that former Prime Minister Sharon unilaterally pulled out of Gaza and that current Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly embraced a two state solution.

The question remains: Have these efforts made Israel more secure?

As I write this column the Israeli Knesset has authorized the mobilization of Defense Force battalions to increase security on Israel’s borders with Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. Israel has been struck by over 150 rockets fired from Gaza and the Egyptian Sinai in the past week alone.

Has Israel moved too far to one side at its great peril?

The Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty was signed in Washington, D.C. on March 26, 1979, following the 1978 Camp David Accords. The Egypt-Israel treaty was signed by Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and witnessed by President Jimmy Carter. Former Prime Minister Begin was a founder of the conservative Likud Party. He gave up the Sinai Peninsula in a land for peace agreement. Egyptian President Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood on October 6, 1981. Just 31 years later, the Muslim Brotherhood has, for a short time, controlled both the Egyptian Parliament and the Presidency.

Today peace in the Middle East is more in jeopardy than ever.

Both camps have traded land for peace in one form or another since 1967. Peace remains elusive if not impossible. According to Dr. Hazan, Israel has no one to negotiate a peace treaty with today. The Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, is not strong enough to insure an agreement is kept. HAMAS, led by Khaled Meshaal, is strong enough to insure a peace agreement is kept but will not enter into negotiations. HAMAS is the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The HAMAS charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Therefore the status quo of a nation under siege is the current national security policy of Israel.

Israel is a modern day Masada.

Government Largess is the Opiate of the People

I attended a round-table presentation given by a local doctor on expanding Medicare to cover ever more Americans. A member of the group during the discussion asked everyone around that table about their personal health care coverage. Everyone said the federal government was at least in part subsidizing their coverage.

I want to use the example of Social Security to explain how we have all become addicted to government largess. With our addiction government control over us has increased to the point that today many are dependent on federal largess to maintain their health, happiness and well being.

Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.” I submit to you that, “Government largess is the opiate of the people.”

Government is defined as a “system of ruling or controlling”. Largesse is defined as, “the liberal giving (as of money) to or as if to an inferior.” Therefore, government largess is ruling or controlling by the liberal giving to inferiors (the governed).

Let me provide a brief historical perspective on how we got here.

We the people began to learn about government largesse 104 years ago with the founding of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society in New York City on September 12, 1905 in Peck’s Restaurant. An organizational meeting was held and Jack London was elected President with Upton Sinclair as First Vice President. The ISS was established to, “throw light [in America] on the world-wide movement of industrial democracy known as socialism.” Their motto was “production for use, not for profit.”

Production for use, not for profit is the prime goal of government largess.

So how could socialists begin distributing government largesse? First they had to gain unfettered control of production.

On February 3, 1913 Congress passed and the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to our Constitution. Congress grabbed control of production via the federal income tax. We taxed our productivity by tapping every American’s wages. With the millions, then billions, and now trillions of dollars that Congress collected, they could entice or even force the strongest American to take the government largesse drug.

Then on April 8, 1913 Congress passed and the states ratified the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution which transferred U.S. Senator Selection from each state’s legislature to popular election by the people of each state.

These two events made it much easier to collect and distribute government largesse as now Senators were no longer loyal to their state legislatures or primarily concerned with state sovereignty. Now U.S. Senators, along with U.S. Representatives, saw the value of spreading the government largesse drug amongst the people in return for votes.

During the Great Depression Congress created the first opiate for the masses and named it Social Security. It was to be a social insurance program run by government, in other words guaranteed government largess for life.

The Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935 by President Franklin Roosevelt. He and Congress said this new drug would keep those unemployed, retirees and the poor financially secure. He called it the New Deal. All we needed to do was just pay in and all would be well.

In 1937 the United States Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Butler validated the Social Security Act and stated that, “Congress could, in its future discretion, spend that money [collected from the income tax] for whatever Congress then judged to be the general welfare of the country. The Court held that Congress has no constitutional power to earmark or segregate certain kinds of tax proceeds for certain purposes, whether the purposes be farm-price supports, foreign aid or social security payments.” All taxes went into the general fund.

Testifying before the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives in 1952, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration said—“The present trust fund is not quite large enough to pay off the benefits of existing beneficiaries”—those already on the receiving end, in other words. In 1955 chief actuary believed that it would take $35 billion just to pay the people “now receiving benefits”.

In 1935 under the Social Security program the Congress included the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Act (AFDC).

During the late 1950s many states realized that this act, while created to help widows with children, was being used to subsidize women having children with men they were not married to. Louisiana alone took 23,000 women off the AFDC act rolls based upon their immoral behavior.

In 1960 Arthur Flemming, then head of the Department of Health and Human Services under President Dwight David Eisenhower and a key architect of Social Security, issued an administrative ruling that states could not deny eligibility for income assistance through the AFDC act on the grounds that a home was “unsuitable” because the woman’s children were illegitimate.

In 1968, the United States Supreme Court’s “Man-in-the-House” rule struck down the practice of states declaring a home unsuitable (i.e., an immoral environment) if there was a man in the house not married to the mother. Thus, out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation were legitimized. In very short order, the number of women on welfare tripled and child poverty climbed dramatically. The assault on the family was on and Congress and the Supreme Court were co-pushers of this new government largesse drug called AFDC.

In effect the federal government became the pimp, the homes of single mothers became the brothels and the fathers became the Johns. The children begotten by these women became the next generation of addicts. Just as a baby born to a mother doing crack is addicted to cocaine, so too are these children born with a lifetime addiction to the onerous and destructive drug – government largess.

Then Congress added a new ingredient to the powerful Social Security drug called Medicare on July 30, 1965.

Congress created Medicare as a single-payer health care system. Medicare was for those over 65 years old and was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. President Johnson called it part of his Great Society program. Congress immediately got more addicts to begin taking this drug.

At the same time Congress added a second even more powerful ingredient to this drug called Medicaid. This new ingredient brought into being an entirely new distribution system – all of the states of the union. Even though this new program violated state sovereignty it was passed anyway, in no small part because Senators were no longer accountable to the State Legislatures but rather committed to pushing government largess.

The states were now helping pay for and distribute this powerful and expensive designer drug. The drug was offered to low-income parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Congress now had more people on the Social Security drug than ever before. Congress had turned a corner – addiction to government largesse was now imbedded in our society.

But Congress was not finished for it kept looking for more clients until we now know that the estimated unfunded liabilities for these four drugs are:

Social Security – $10.7 trillion

Medicare Parts A and B – $68 trillion

Medicare Part D – $17.2 trillion (created in just 3 years)

Our addiction to government largess will cost our children and grandchildren an estimated $95.9 trillion dollars. Ladies and gentlemen, the gross domestic product of the entire world in 2007 was $61 trillion.

I repeat my premise that government largess is the true opiate of the people.

I close with the following quote from a May 26, 1955 Herald-Tribune News Service article:

“Seven Amish bishops appealed to Congress today to exempt members of their church from receiving any benefits of the Social Security program. They are willing to continue paying Social Security taxes, however . . . . The bishops made it clear that no elder of the church would think, today, of applying for Social Security or any other government benefits. They want the law changed, they said, to “remove temptation” from their children and grandchildren.”

Watch this video: Government Gone Wild Seminar: Cradle to Grave

Allen West: Who defines our rights, and why I stand with Phil

This morning as I did my regular run and workout I was thinking about the real issue surrounding Phil Robertson. Too many are focused on the words spoken, but there are some deeper issues to ponder. For me, the prevailing issue is centered around one word: “rights.”

Phil Robertson is a born-again Christian and I’m quite sure the executives at A&E knew that from the get go. Phil was paraphrasing the following:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New International Version)

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The unalienable right from our Creator that Phil has is his “pursuit of happiness” and Mr. Robertson defines that as his Christian faith — that is his right.

Furthermore, as codified in our US Constitution, Phil has the rights of free speech, freedom of religion, and the free exercise of religion. It’s funny to me that some believe American freedom of expression includes burning our beloved flag, but I guess Phil’s is not tolerated.

Which brings up another key point, who is the guardian of tolerance? Who sits back and defines what is or is not to be tolerated? There is a theocratic-political totalitarian ideology that operates freely in America — and across the world — that executes those who engage in same-sex relationships. But I don’t hear too much complaint against them. Did Phil take it too far using some crude language? Maybe, but then again, that’s his image, a simple straight talking American man, and it seems A&E loves it when it’s making them money.

A&E is Phil Robertson’s employer. I don’t know what his specific contract states, but A&E is economically profiting from the Christian faith and the subsequent popularity of Phil Robertson and the “Duck Dynasty” trademark enterprise — it goes way beyond just a show.

A&E has their own brand and as a private sector employer they have the right to hire and fire as they choose, albeit in this case it seems they’ve overreacted and are suffering the consequences. It has to be a matter of concern for all of us in America when special interest groups believe they can bring pressure and punish organizations due to their “dislikes.” How far could this aspect of censorship go?

Should A&E have suspended Phil Robertson? My assessment is no. Should A&E have had a chat with Phil before the GQ interview and discussed their concerns? Yes. Does A&E have the right to prevent Phil from doing interviews? Depends on the parameters of his contract.

The third component to analyze is the pressure from gay advocacy special interest groups. Last night on “The Kelly File” on Fox, a gentleman representing GLAAD stated that “Phil Robertson wanted freedom from consequence.”

Oh come on. These groups want freedom from any dissenting views. This is the danger in America when we start to grant “rights” to groups based upon behavioral choices. I often wonder, what if you choose to be bisexual? Do you lose half of your gay rights or only get part of your straight rights?

Every American has the right to the “pursuit of happiness.” If your “pursuit of happiness” means a same-sex relationship, very well.

But we must not then seek to redefine all other aspects of established societal norms just to appease. There should be no discrimination based upon sexual preference, but then again, there shouldn’t be any preferential discrimination against those who disagree. Case in point — the lawsuit against the New Mexico couple who refused to photograph a same-sex marriage because it was not in concert with their faith.

And no, I don’t see this as a civil rights struggle such as that for women (gender) or for blacks (race), or other ethnicity. Gender, race and ethnicity are not lifestyles.

Do two people of the same sex have the right to love each other? Absolutely. Do they have the right to force me to agree with it? No. Do they have the right to not be discriminated against? Yes. Do they have the right to advocate for additional rights because of a preferential choice? No, and what more rights do you require? Do they have the right to redefine other established aspects of our society? Let the people decide — but we should not have special interest groups run to the courts to overrule the referendum of the people, as with California and Proposition 8.

We must be very circumspect about understanding what is a right and what is a privilege in America. Politicians will collectivize us and use the word “rights” to manipulate us for their own personal gain. Right to own a home? Right to healthcare? Just remember the words of President Thomas Jefferson, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take it all away.”

Phil Robertson has the “right” to speak his mind based upon his personal beliefs. People don’t have to like it but to leverage pressure to affect someone’s life and liberty based upon their pursuit of happiness is not in concert with our American values. And let’s be honest here, GQ knew exactly what it was doing and sought a certain response to please the intolerant left. It has horribly backfired — just like the attack against Chick-fil-A. Phil Robertson is an even greater American Icon.

So for the record, I’ll give you my stance, plain and simple and why I stand with Phil. For me, homosexuality is a sin, because I executed my individual right to choose Christianity as my faith. There are other things that are sinful for me as well. I am far from perfect, I’m just trying to live a Christ-like life as a flawed human being.

The great thing about America is that we all have free will, so if you choose not to follow the precepts of a Christian faith, you are free to live as you wish. I do not condemn you, as a matter of fact, I gave 22 years of my life to protect your “pursuit of happiness,” but as I respect your individual right, I ask you to respect mine — and that is the essence of coexistence.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on

America, A Christian Nation

It is a great regret that arrogant atheists attack Christmas at this time of year and that too many institutions from schools to stores feel intimidated enough to remove mention of it. It is one thing to deny the existence of God, but the attacks are intended to undermine the faith of millions of Americans. The atheists forget or neglect the fact that the pilgrims came here to freely practice their interpretation of Christianity.

It is a habit of mine to revisit the classic literature of the past and, with the advent of Christmas, I picked up an excerpt from Edward Gibbon’s famed “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” that addressed in part the role of Christianity.

Gibbon’s vast knowledge of the Empire eventually filled six volumes. The first three volumes were published in 1776 and became a bestseller. The final three volumes cemented his reputation as a historian.

Gibbon - Edward

Historian Edward Gibbon, (1737-1794)

Gibbon (1737-1794) not only possessed a vast body of knowledge, but also a felicity of prose that enhances the pleasure of reading him. His history of Rome also contained open criticism of organized religion which no doubt evoked a great deal of discussion at the time.

The religion of Rome, however, being polytheistic with many gods could only be called organized insofar as temples to those gods were built wherever it exercised its power. Suffice to say, the then-new religion of Christianity was declared illegal and Christians were widely persecuted.

Initially, the adherents to Christianity were Jews. Gibbon notes that “The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the congregations over which they presided, united the law of Moses with the doctrine of Christ.” Judaism had been around for a thousand years by that time, but there were a variety of factors that kept it isolated and limited in numbers. It did not actively proselytize and the requirement for circumcision was a deterrent. Judaism also had many restrictions such as dietary laws and requirements that further reduced its attraction for the masses.

All that changed with the advent of Saul of Tarsus, now known as St. Paul, a Jew who experienced an epiphany that threw open the doors to the philosophical and theological basis of Judaism. “Christianity offered itself to the world, armed with the strength of the Mosaic Law and delivered from its fetters,” wrote Gibbon. “The divine authority of Moses and the prophets was admitted, and even established, as the firmest basis of Christianity.”

“The promise of divine favor, instead of being partially confirmed to the posterity of Abraham, was universally proposed to the freeman and the slave, to the Greek and the barbarian, to the Jew and to the Gentile.”

“When the promise of eternal happiness was proposed to mankind, on condition of adopting the faith, and of observing the precepts of the gospel, it is no wonder that so advantageous an offer should have been accepted by great numbers of every religion, of every rank, and of every province in the Roman Empire.”

The Roman Empire had reigned supreme for almost 300 years when Christianity came on the scene and would last another 200 until, in the view of historians; it became too tired to maintain itself. It stretched across the known world from the British Isles to India, exacting taxes and offering protection. By the third century it could not be effectively governed from Rome and split into two factions, East and West, seen today in the Eastern and Western churches.

Christianity offered something that Judaism did not; the promise of life after death, of Heaven, and, conversely, a vision of Hell. Neither the prophets, nor the sages of Judaism devoted much attention to what occurred after death because there is no way to determine what occurs in its wake. Instead, Judaism has always placed an emphasis on how one can pursue a life of proper behavior based on the interpretation of the Torah or Old Testament whose heart is found in the Ten Commandments.

Gibbon wrote “It was by the aid of these causes, exclusive zeal, the immediate expectation of another world, the claim of miracles, the practice of rigid virtue, and the constitution of the primitive church, that Christianity spread itself with so much success in the Roman Empire.”

The gospels were composed in the Greek language “at a considerable distance from Jerusalem” and after gentile converts had grown in numbers. “As soon as those histories were translated into the Latin tongue, there were perfectly intelligible to all the subjects of Rome” with some exceptions.

AA - Aethiest Billbord

An atheist billboard in NY City’s Times Square.

The conversion of Constantine in the fourth century made Christianity the official religion of Rome. It is estimated that, by then, almost a third of the population had previously embraced Christianity and the Empire had already begun to decline. In the early 400s, Rome was conquered by the barbaric tribes of northern Europe, the Gaul’s, Visigoths, and others. Europe was plunged into the Dark Ages.

In time Christianity would spread to much of the world though it would compete with the more ancient faiths of Hinduism and Buddhism, and the tribal faiths of Africa and the New World.

In 632 A.D. Islam, the invention of Mohammed, would spread as much by the sword as by its doctrine. It is the enemy of all other religions and its persecution of Christians is a warning to the world. Mohammed told his followers, “The sword is the key to heaven and hell.” These days, the Middle East is being “cleansed” of Christians. No accommodation can be made with Islam.

The demographics of Christianity have shifted significantly in the last century, largely due to the enmity of Communism. As noted in a recent article, “In Latin America alone, there are 517 million Christians. In Africa, 411 million. Asia tallies 251 million. Once a global powerhouse of Christianity, Europe is home to an ever-shrinking 553 million (expected to drop to 480 million by 2050) while North America has 275 million.”

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” said President Barack Obama on June 28, 2006. A true Christian would never have uttered those words.

America was and is a Christian nation. Obama either misspoke or deliberately lied. His words barely acknowledge the role of Christianity in the founding and history of our nation. His words betray its role today.

Gibbon’s great work about the fall of Rome is a warning to all present empires and great powers. It fell because it lacked a doctrine of virtue as much as from the attacks by the barbarians who finished it off.

Today Communism is the faith of the new barbarians and Islam is the faith of its enemies. The defense of civilization falls heavily on the worldwide Christian community.

© Alan Caruba. 2013

RELATED COLUMN: Prince Charles says what Obama won’t: Christians are being persecuted

Duck Dynasty’s Robertson Angers Alcoholics, Philanderers

Phil Robertson’s recent controversial comments have drawn criticism from a wide spectrum of offended minorities.

Most inflammatory in his remarks was this infamous passage: “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men…Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

First to weigh in was Patrick O’Malley of the Alliance of Alcoholics and Philanderers. “What is wrong with this man?” asked an astonished O’Malley between sips of whiskey. “Everybody knows this nation was built on alcohol and infidelity. I was hurt more by his comments than my wife when she found out about my 11th affair. I can’t help it if I was born adulterous, and along comes this bigot acting like it’s a choice and a wrong one at that. We have no place for judgmental people like that in today’s society.”

phil robenson suspendedO’Malley’s sentiments were echoed on MSNBC by former president Bill Clinton, who said, “As a fellow Southerner, sportsman, and Christian, I am deeply disappointed by Phil’s hurtful rhetoric. There are serial rapists and adulterers out there who feel really marginalized by this kind of exclusive language. I’m here to tell them that I feel their pain.”

Speaking from the Senate floor this morning, Harry Reid commented, “I especially take offense at his comment that the greedy and the swindlers, and I quote, “won’t inherit the kingdom of God” end quote. Just what authority is he claiming here? One higher than the Senate of the United States? I urge my Republican colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to support a bill repealing I Corinthians 6:9 and assuring swindlers their place in Heaven.”

Achmed al-Tikriti, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Muslims (GLAM) spoke out passionately on the Piers Morgan Show: “As a member of the most progressive and tolerant religion on earth, I urge Phil Robertson to reconsider his damaging statements and to declare jihad on his bigotry. It was enough that A&E would not ban “in Jesus’ Name” at their unclean mealtime prayers, but this, this is more than we can bear. By the prophet, the pain is so hurtful! Make it stop!”

A message released by A&E’s Department of Tolerance stated, “We have long been strong and proud supporters of adultery, bestiality, idolatry, drunkenness, greed, slander, and swindling. We deeply regret Mr. Robertson’s slanderous libel against our minority citizens and urge him to shut up until he learns a little tolerance.”

Completely unrepentant, Mr. Robertson says he’s “happy, happy, happy” to take a stand for Christ.

EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Scary combo: Impotent Congress and Imperial President

The 113th Congress is about to end its first session and has been referred to as one of the least productive legislative bodies in recent history. Perhaps there are those of you who feel that’s a good thing…

As Reid Wilson writes in the Washington Post:

“As the Senate prepares to take up the budget deal this week, both sides say it is likely to be one of the final pieces of significant legislation to pass the 113th Congress as midterm elections loom.

After the Senate reconvenes in January, observers say, the coming year is unlikely to yield significant legislative action. Democrats will probably advance measures intended to draw political contrasts with Republicans — including a proposal to raise the minimum wage and a number of smaller bills that they say would boost jobs and strengthen the economy. None of those measures are likely to win Republican votes or spur action in the GOP-controlled House.”

In other words 2014 brings the American people more politics, not policy, as the game continues, DC-style.

Here’s what we have to look forward to: a final deal on the farm bill, a water-resources agreement – and of course another deal to raise the debt ceiling. Speaker John Boehner says he won’t take up the Senate-passed version of immigration reform, but the Senate may take action on a proposal from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to make changes to the military’s handling of sexual assault cases.

We wrote on this legislative proposal by Sen. Gillibrand and her desire to completely remake the Commander’s involvement in the military justice system, basically stripping them of their command authority in all major cases and creating an outside independent legal body. This is a very bad idea and we hope you’ll contact your Senators to express disapproval. Lastly the Senate may consider a new package of sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, albeit against the desires of the Obama administration.

But don’t take your eye off the ball when you have a lying, obtuse, arrogant, and belligerent President Obama who will try to use low Congressional approval ratings to support his unilateral executive actions — something he’s already done.

As we reported, John Podesta, former President of the Center for American Progress, is joining the White House and is known as an expert in “Executive Actions.”

And with a stacked DC Circuit Court, thanks to Harry Reid’s violation of Senate rules, we could be looking at a 2014 not of governance by legislation and the will of the people, but rather of rule by edict — executive order and regulatory fiat — issued from a despotic ruler who sees his agenda to fundamentally transform America as his ultimate will. Fasten your seat belts folks, we’re in for bumpy ride.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appears on

Violence lies behind the Burqa

In February 2012, we posted on the arrest of an Iraqi émigré family in Phoenix for an attempted honor killing of their daughter:

Honor shame incidents appear to be of near epidemic proportions among Iraqi Muslim immigrants in Phoenix. As we noted in our earlier post, an Iraqi Muslim immigrant father had run down and killed his daughter and was convicted in a Maricopa County Court Case last year in another honor killing. CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, engaged in taqiyya when he told the media that the Arizona honor shame violence . . . were “isolated incidents”. His bald-faced comment was: “”We condemn any false justification for domestic violence or abuse based on religious beliefs.”

These were evidence of a history of high profile honor shame killings and violence perpetrated on Muslim women that have occurred in Canada and the US.  We had the  conviction  in a Kingston , Ontario courtroom of the Canadian Afghan Shafia family for horrific quadruple honor murders  of another wife and three daughters in a polygamous Montreal household. We had the murder of a divorced Muslim woman in Tampa, Florida.  There was the murder of a daughter in Atlanta by her Pakistani émigré father. The country was riveted by the tragic death of two daughters of an American wife killed by their father, a fugitive Egyptian cab driver in Texas. There was the ghastly murder of wife in Buffalo by the founder of a ‘moderate’ Muslim TV channel. Besides the Shafia family in Montreal, we had the death of a young Muslim girl at the hands of her father and brother in Mississauga, Ontario.

But it is not just Canada and the US in the West, honor shame violence has even occurred down under. That was revealed in a recent  incident involving the savage beating of a Muslim teenager reported in The New Zealand Herald“Burqa hid injuries of teen repeatedly bashed – police”:

A teenage girl police believe was beaten at home was forced to hide her facial injuries behind a burqa, while members of the Muslim community are alleged to have hushed up the abuse.

Her injuries included a broken nose, damaged teeth and extensive bruising. Police claim the 15-year-old was subjected to sustained physical abuse from at least one family member over two or more months.

“The case was brought to police attention when a school friend of the girl was made aware of the abuse and was able to borrow a cell phone from another child at a neighboring school to call 111,” child protection officer Detective Sarah Boniface said. “The girl was not able to get access to a phone herself.”

Dr. Phyllis Chesler, prominent American feminist and fellow of The Middle East Forum, is an advocate for banning the Burqa. Prompted by this New Zealand incident, she responded in a FoxNews op ed, “Beneath the burqa — a bruised and badly beaten teenager”.   She cites the burqa [as]:

A sensory deprivation isolation chamber, (sensory deprivation is used as a form of torture); a burqa is also an ambulatory body bag and I oppose this with all my mind and heart as a violation of human and women’s rights.

I am no fan of the burqa and have even argued that the West should ban it.

I believe that the kind of men who expect and demand that women wear burqas in the West today are likely to be radical Islamists; as such, they may be more likely to engage in acts of military jihad here. The Koran absolutely does not mandate the burqa or, for that matter, a face covering of any kind.

In her Fox News op ed Chesler cites the extreme example of quadruple honor killings committed by the convicted Afghan Canadian Shafia family.  Chesler drew attention to the moral equivalence of “omerta” in Muslim families. Chesler said, “that sustained physical abuse and psychological cruelty often precedes or is correlated with a subsequent honor killing”.  In the case of the savage beating of the Muslim teenager in New Zealand, hidden from public view by a Burqa, Chesler commented that the police became aware that “members of the community in positions of power and trust knew that the abuse was serious but did not help the girl.”

Chesler knows about the potential violence committed against Muslim women first hand. As a young American Jewish bride of an Afghan Muslim husband she was virtually imprisoned in a polygamous Afghan Muslim household after her US passport was taken away from her upon arrival in Kabul.  She cites that episode from five decades ago as a motivating factor behind her career as a prominent feminist and opponent of Sharia honor shame violence, often hidden behind burqas.  Chesler reveals this defining moment of her Afghan experience in a recently published memoir, An American Bride in Kabul.  We will publish both a review of Chesler’s latest book and an interview with the author in the January 2014 New English Review.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

I Now Pronounce You Man and Wives

The Family Research Council reports:

Turns out, marriage isn’t about two people who love each other — it’s about three or five or six. That was Judge Clark Waddoups’s opinion in the most explosive ruling the media isn’t talking about. Late last week, the U.S. District Judge’s ruling should have kicked off the evening news in every major market across America. Instead, his 91-page pro-polygamy bombshell is nothing but a back-page blip. And that’s no accident. When Waddoups struck down Utah’s criminal ban on “plural marriages” last Friday, the networks started tiptoeing around the story like the cultural grenade it is.

Like us, they know the Left’s dirty little secret — that people who support same-sex “marriage” are saying “I do” to a lot more than they bargained for. While liberals insist that same-sex “marriage” is the ultimate goal, their demands only lay the groundwork for other relationships to demand the same entitlements. Once the courts and policy makers depart from the natural definition of marriage, the Left has a legal foundation for any arrangement between consenting adults.

Judge Waddoups essentially admitted as much. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court outlawed polygamy years ago, Waddoups insists that he can’t possibly rest on that decision in modern society. In his words, America has “developed constitutional jurisprudence that now protects individuals from the criminal consequences intended by legislatures to apply to certain personal choices.”

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act this summer only sped the process along. Polygamists popped the corked on a little champagne of their own after the June ruling, as they wait their turn for nationwide acceptance. “We’re very happy with [the ruling on DOMA]” said Joe Darger, a Utah polygamist, “I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us… I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else.” Proponents of polygamy are riding the homosexual movement’s wave of success all the way to legitimacy.

And that’s exactly what the mainstream media is afraid of. They see the potential for this debate to sway the middle and derail the same-sex “marriage” train. Recognizing that their destinies are very much intertwined, polygamists are using the same playbook as their same-sex “marriage” counterparts: Step one: overturn the law. Step two: demand recognition. Step three: force acceptance.

Ten years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted exactly that in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court decision rolling back sodomy statutes. With prophetic insight, he pointed to the threat to state laws “based on moral choices” against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution… adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.” Anyone being intellectually honest knew this was where liberals were pushing America. Of course, the media for years laughed off groups like FRC who warned that the Left’s goal isn’t same-sex “marriage” but any kind of marriage.

Just this year, extremists like Jillian Keenan did conservatives a favor by owning up to the fact that homosexual “marriage” is just the warm-up act to an even more shocking agenda. “Let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage,” she wrote in a column for Slate. “We need to legalize polygamy too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.”

That wasn’t a typo. Keenan actually argues for polygamy — a practice that degrades and devalues the role of women — as the feminist alternative. And the Left wants to accuse conservatives of a war on women? Legalizing polygamy would undermine the Left’s banner cause — equality — and turn back the clock on women’s rights that has become the standard of Western Civilization.

Shows like “Sister Wives” may make people sympathetic. It may even help break down inhibitions (as evidenced in Gallup’s poll). But once Americans start to realize the practical implications of these parallel movements — for their school curriculum, tax dollars, and free speech rights — the public debate will only intensify. Despite the media’s silence and homosexual activists’ increasing campaign of intimidation, the American people may have finally found the inspiration to push back against the forces trying to redefine marriage. It’s never too late to change course — and this decision may have finally given the nation a reason to try.

US & UK Create New State of Kidnapistan in Southern Syria


The USSA and her subsidiary, the United Socialist Kingdom, have formed a new state in territory formerly held by the reactionary imperialist regime of Syria, which will henceforth be known as the Islamic Socialist Republic of Kidnapistan.

Once the Jihadi Salafists were categorized as a minority group in Syria, they immediately became eligible for special protection, similar to what the Party and the State extend to minority groups at home. It was decided, therefore, that in the interest of the unity of the word proletariat, the workers and peasants of the Sunni Islamic Fundamentalist minority are entitled to a redistributive state of their own.

The Supreme Council for International Peace and Security has allocated funding and military assistance to this fledgling peace-loving entity in the Middle East, which will soon outshine all other nations in the region in its commitment to equality and redistributive justice, while maintaining its unique Islamic identity.

It is unclear at this time whether the USSA will assist the soon-to-be-formed government of Kidnapistan in religious cleansing and deportations of the non-Jihadist, non-minority current residents who are not in full compliance with this territory’s new status.

However, the Party has been assured by Comrade John McCain that non-Salafist elements in the area will continue to be shown the same courtesy and kindness that Syria’s progressive Jihadist minority has been long known for.

EDITORS NOTE: This satirical column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Arapahoe High School Shooter a “Committed Socialist”

There are politicians from both parties, media outlets and pundits who will spin the story of Karl Halverson Pierson, 18, who has been identified as the high school student who brought a shotgun into Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado, on December 13th. Pierson wounded a fellow female student and then killed himself.

Jim Hoft, from the Gateway Pundit states, “Pierson, an indoctrinated 18 year-old, was a committed socialist who hated Republicans.” Hoft quotes Zahira Torres and Yesenia Robles from The Denver Post who reported:

The teenage gunman who entered Arapahoe High School Friday afternoon and shot two fellow students with a shotgun was outspoken about politics, a gifted debater and may have been bullied for his beliefs, according to students who knew him.

“He had very strong beliefs about gun laws and stuff,” said junior Abbey Skoda, who was in a class with the alleged shooter her freshman year.

Thomas Conrad, who had an economics class with [the shooter] Pierson, described him as a very opinionated Socialist*…

…”He was exuberant I guess,” Conrad said. “A lot of people picked on him, but it didn’t seem to bother him.”

In one Facebook post, Pierson attacks the philosophies of economist Adam Smith who through his invisible hand theory pushed the notion that the free market was self-regulating. In another post, he describes himself as “Keynesian.”

“…I was wondering to all the neoclassicals and neoliberals, why isn’t the market correcting itself?” he wrote. “If the invisible hand is so strong, shouldn’t it be able to overpower regulations?”

Pierson also appears to mock Republicans on another Facebook post, writing “you republicans are so cute” and posting an image that reads: “The Republican Party: Health Care: Let ‘em Die, Climate Change: Let ‘em Die, Gun Violence: Let ‘em Die, Women’s Rights: Let ‘em Die, More War: Let ‘em Die. Is this really the side you want to be on?” (emphasis added)

According to the UK Daily Mail, “In other [Facebook] posts, he touted his support for gay rights and made fun of Republicans but then also wrote on Facebook that he did not believe that President Obama did not deserve a second term in office. His friends and fellow seniors Carl Schmidt and Brendon Mendelson told The Post that his political views were ‘outside the mainstream’.”

Some will spin that he had a gun, a shotgun to be specific as recommended by Vice President Biden. Others will spin his easy access to public school grounds and the idea that no one on campus of this high school was armed, including the debate coach Pierson was pursuing for kicking him off the debate team. Others will point to his political leanings, while others will grieve and wring their hands wondering what to do next.

Colorado seems to have its share of student shooters. Perhaps those things done in Colorado to stop this kind of incident are not working?

That is the bottom line. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is a form of murderous madness.

US Roman Catholic bishop calls Mandela’s support for abortion “shameful” reports,The Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, R.I., says that while there’s much to admire in Nelson Mandela’s life and public service, the former South African president’s support for abortion was ‘shameful.'”

Bishop Thomas Tobin, in a statement posted Sunday on the diocesan website, criticized Mandela’s decision in 1996 to sign legislation liberalizing South Africa’s abortion laws. Tobin wrote, “We can only regret that his noble defense of human dignity did not include the youngest members of our human family, unborn children.”

Tobin’s comments stand in contrast to those of Pope Francis, who in a telegram to South African President Jacob Zuma last week praised Mandela’s steadfast commitment to “promoting the human dignity of all” his nation’s citizens. Tobin has frequently taken on public figures over abortion, including Pope Francis. The bishop in September said he was “a little bit disappointed” the pope had not addressed the topic of abortion during his first six months as pope.

Steve Ertelt of reported, “Pope Francis told a pro-life group in Rome, over the weekend, that a ‘throwaway culture’ is responsible for abortion that results in the destruction of unborn children.”

“This false model of man and society embodies a practical atheism, de facto negating the Word of God that says: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness,’” Pope Francis explained.

The Pope said “[T]here is an originary dignity of every man and woman that cannot be suppressed, that cannot be touched by any power or ideology.”

Here is Pope Francis’ address to a delegation from the Dignitatis Humanae Institute.