John Carlson
UPDATE!
Synopsis of events added…
Isn’t it rich?
A mockery of hope?
One who twists protestant views,
Another the pope.
Send in the clowns.
a
Isn’t it bliss?
Aren’t they confused?
Tangled in webs of
Deceptions they’ve used
Dan Kennedy
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
a
Just when I’d stopped reading their word,
Certain they’d prove their own comments absurd,
Making endorsements again with their usual flair,
Looking inside,
Nothing is there.
a
Joe Fuiten
Don’t you love farce?
Isn’t it queer,
Misplacing their conscience this late
In their career?
But where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.
Synopsis
- Dan Kennedy, (current) CEO of Human Life of Washington, in an effort to help Rossi (whom Human Life does NOT endorse) defeat Akers and Didier (both of whom Human Life Endorses), publishes a piece on the Human Life Website suggesting that Rossi’s vote on SB 6537 was justified by (false) claims about it (being offered up by Democrats, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and (according to Kennedy) the Washington State Catholic Conference.)
- KVI Talk show host and nominal Catholic, John Carlson, quotes the Kennedy piece during his interview of Clint Didier on August 4 as part of a planned ambush. Carlson treats the Kennedy statement as gospel.
- Politician pastor Joe Fuiten, apparently unaware of the carefully deceptive wording in the web article by his close ally, Kennedy, quotes it in a mass email supporting Rossi, as if voting FOR the bill, as Rossi did, represents the position of Human Life, the organization that pays Kennedy’s slalary.
- Steve Beren, on his facebook page, uncritically quotes Fuiten quoting Kennedy in support of their mutual candidate, Rossi.
- Kennedy, cornered on facebook into direct answers to Michelle McIntyre of Life of the Party, admits that Human Life’s position is THAT THE BILL FORCES HOSPITALS, EVEN PRIVATE CATHOLIC HOSPITALS, TO DISPENSE ABORTIFACIENTS AND THAT HUMAN LIFE OPPOSED THE BILL AND WORKED, AT THE TIME, FOR A “CONSCIENCE CLAUSE,” thus proving, with his own mouth, that Fuiten’s email is completely false and his own web article completely deceptive.
- Dino Rossi, who, we believe, engineered this entire counter-attack on the REAL Pro-Life movement, maintains silence, hiding, pretending the primary doesn’t exist, that his pretense will hold, and that he has no conservative opposition.
How long can you hold your breath?
The Answer: Send in the clowns.
The question: How does Dino Rossi call an advisory board meeting?
I agree with exempting health-care professionals on conscientious or religious grounds, and I think that lawmakers who do not support such a provision probably have very little respect or regard for people of faith.
Having said that, I do not consider use of the “morning after pill” to constitute infanticide. While it may technically be an abortifacient, it certainly does not effectuate the destruction of anything resembling a person, fetus or life as even the most liberal interpretations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments would proscribe. Furthermore I feel strongly that prohibiting a woman who has been raped, access to the pill, is an extremist position that affords the abortionists and their apologists, short sightedly, a public relations coup. I also think that pro-life groups denying a candidate any kind of endorsement based solely on his or her lack of opposition to the MAP, are doing a profound disservice to the millions of women having conventional abortions yearly. I believe it’s political folly to spend resources we don’t have trying to convince Americans that a cluster of cells equates to a living breathing person. I understand my position is in conflict with a sizable portion of the pro-life community which is regrettably (in my opinion) composed overwhelmingly of Christian Fundamentalists, Mormons and conservative Catholics whose views seem to be based primarily on their religious beliefs, and not so much persuasive scientific or biological arguments. I am aware that in the view of many of you, a person exists from the point at which a soul materializes. I happen to agree, but we may have no way of knowing when that is except through faith. When we start legislating our faith exclusively with very little ‘scientific’ provenance to back it up, I’m concerned we could be drifting down a slippery slope.
The notion has occurred to me that if NARAL wanted to infiltrate pro-life groups and discredit them by sowing immoderation, they could do no better than some PL groups are already doing with such austere rigor. The pro-life movement would do well, by many, to stick to the proposition that Roe vs. Wade is highly unconstitutional based on a plethora of legal grounds, not to mention inhumane because it condones the destruction of what is unquestionably, from a biological perspective, a human being. It’s ridiculous and tragic that so many in our society have bought into the canard that until a fetus can survive outside the womb, it does not constitute a life or person worthy of protection.
THAT, is an argument we can win.
As always, I could be wrong, and if I am I would pray that God inform and correct me as a feather alights.
PS: To the rube with very little imagination who’s already thought of posting under the handle “God”, “You’re wrong” .. Don’t.
Wow! Most Christians, as I do, believe life begins from the very second of conception–period. If you are pregnant you are pregnant and a new life has began and should not be destroyed by abortion OR the “morning after pill”….
The bill Rossi voted for (morning after pill) goes against all that Christians and PRO-LIFE people believe in. Rossi can say whatever he wants. He voted for a bill to end a fetus’ life the day after it was conceived.
ROSSI IS NOT A PRO-LIFER! His voting record proves that point loud and clear.
To JIM: RIGHT ON!
RE: “…it certainly does not effectuate the destruction of anything resembling a person, fetus or life…”!
Ah… finally refreshing to hear something existential at last and not contaminated with that religious poison called infinite, eternal, unchangeable in being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness or truth!
In the apple we say ‘enough already’!
About time someone other than a ‘preacher’ type, or ‘pastor type, or evangelist type, spoke up here!!
Here’s to you, Jim!
My ancestors spoke of a similarly refreshing attitude, one which transcends the ages and dominated some books of the past century. Their rulers on the one side, Stalin behind the old iron wall, and the Adolf in Berlin on the other side of the family, both relished the existential sciences.
After all it certainly does not effectuate the destruction of anything resembling a person, fetus or life, when it came down to great uncle Rabbi Paulson Revarson.
But the real proof it certainly does not effectuate the destruction of anything resembling a person, fetus or life,was uncle’s friend, that really really ugly gypsy who fled out of Luds’k through Bialystok to Dresden… he was so existentially awful and un-human in his ugliness we all laughed. You can imagine his chances in Dresden even if he had made it to 13th February 1945.
But he was too ugly for the legislature. So was uncle Paulson!
Bach,
I may not know history as well as you but your reply to Jim
seems to have been perfect for he’s now speechless. That
was some feather that drifted onto his forehead. It must have
felt like a hammer to an anvil.
Doug, when are you going to stop posting comments under the pseudonym?
You may be a formidable composer, which is surprising for someone with such a tin ear who does a lot more preaching to, than directing of, the choir. Still, you’re no Johann Sebastian Bach. You’re not even Johann Christian Bach, Carl Frederick Emanuel Bach or Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach.
You might be Gottfried Heinrich Bach, who is said to have “shown genius that never developed.”
More than likely though you are Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, acknowledged genius improviser, but “evidently less willing than most younger contemporaries to compose fashionable, readily accessible music.”
In the manner of your most recent collaborator, some of your fugues strike me as a little more Medieval than Baroque, particularly when sung laboriously by the Children’s Chorus to the detriment of their studies. While certainly original, the counterpoint could stand to be more harmonically interdependent, the divergent voices, melodious.
Stalin was educated at seminary and training to be a priest.
http://creation.com/stalin
Sledge, it only seems like I’m speechless because they often don’t post my comments.
Jim,
Let me correct your erroneous assumption.
Doug is not posting comments under a pseudonym.
Bach is not Doug.
You will find Bach at other liberty sites of note, commenting on matters of importance to the republic for which he or she fights and has fought for decades.
And an error of fact. You no longer post comments at TRW with any regularity. Indeed, a few of your comments have not been posted. For various reasons. One such today was clearly a private message, not intended for general viewing. Another appears to have been sent because an earlier comment was not approved rapidly enough to suit you. Contrary to popular misconception, none of the folks at TRW sits at a keyboard and monitor all day long, constantly refreshing the comments page. :-)
This is a private forum. As such, TRW is under no “free speech” obligation with regard to comments. That right applies to the public square, not the private house. We will continue to judiciously monitor and edit comments with regard to both the discussion at hand and the ability of our editors and contributors to engage the authors of certain comments in further discussion. We all have other obligations, including earning a living, and have endless demands upon our limited time.
If in fact–and I’m still not sure I buy it according to the similarity of some of their sardonic stylings–Doug is not Bach, then I apologize for allowing Bach’s adolescent musings to depreciate the value of Doug’s very impressive literary portfolio and catalogue of non-literary works, save the most recent.
I found Bach’s post, whoever he is, to be pretentious, frivolous and just plain annoying. Along with the treatment I’ve gotten here recently, it precipitated some similarly catty remarks I would not otherwise have made.
My bad.
I still think Doug most closely resembles Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, “acknowledged genius composer and improviser”, but “evidently less willing than most younger contemporaries to compose fashionable, readily accessible music.”