Displaying items by tag: bill muehlenberg

Blue skies and plenty of sunshine – a great day to march for the babies again. The ninth annual March for the Babies in Melbourne just finished. Several thousand passionate and peaceful marchers – men and women, children, grandmothers and grandfathers – marched to remind Melbourne, Victoria and the world that we do not accept the mass slaughter of the unborn. Since the horrific abortion on demand law was passed here ten years ago, there have been over 200,000 babies killed with official state sanction. Some 20,000 poor preborn children are taken to their slaughter each year thanks to one of the most liberalised abortion laws in the world. But we were not alone. Prolifers also marched this afternoon in Brisbane because they are about to vote on a similar nasty piece of legislation.

Great thinkers and writers often think and write about many great things – and a great many things. The noted Christian apologist and academic C. S. Lewis was one such person. Although he had his area of specialisation – English literature – he was conversant in, and wrote about, a myriad of subjects. Thus he could write about theology, he could pen children’s stories, he could engage in the debates of the day, and he could deal with many of the great thinkers both past and present. He also wrote on philosophical, historical and political themes.

Militant trans activism is so bizarre, so idiotic, and so completely illusory that it must eventually collapse under its own weight. It seeks to defy everything, including biology, DNA, truth and reality itself. Eventually such lunacy and delusion must self-destruct – either that or it is the end of civilisation as we know it. And we can help this moonbeam movement to implode by playing its own game and using it against them. If they want to revel in irrationality, fantasy and moral and mental myopia, let’s just take what they offer and take it to its logical conclusion.

Update to this article: there were violent clashes between police and protesters outside Stefan Molyneux and Laura Southern's Melbourne event last night. According to the ABC report, police blamed the speakers for the violence. Police Commander, Tim Hansen, stated:  "Their actions put their lives, the lives of the public and the lives of police officers at risk. The safety of the community is our main concern and our officers could have been used more effectively across Melbourne on a Friday night. It is disappointing that we had to use significant resources to mediate between two groups with opposing views." I agree: it IS disappointing. Disappointing that the Victorian state government expects a speaker to pay for the police protection it is obliged to provide and doesn't slap violent protesters with the fine! As with the case of Milo Yiannopoulos, it isn't necessary that we agree with their views or with their lifestyles to defend others' right to freely express an opinion. - Ed. 

Yesterday I wrote about the victory of Colorado cake-maker Jack Phillips. While I still stand with that piece, the only thing I regret was the title I ran with – in haste. I had to dash out, so I quickly changed a more innocuous headline to a more eye-catching one. [Read this story here on Bill's website.] However, anyone reading the piece instead of just going by the title would have seen that this win was hardly an end-all and be-all decision by America’s highest court.

[Photo credit: Tommy Robinson / Youtube. Bill has had some criticism via social media for defending the likes of Tommy Robinson and Geert Wilder. Here's his response to that, with which I heartily agree: "Some folks make it their mission, however imperfectly, to expose things like horrific rape gangs. Some folks prefer to be armchair critics and attack these watchmen. I know which group of people I will side with, any day of the week. The former group will heavily pay for this, often with their very lives. The latter group sacrifices nothing."] Less than a week ago English activist Tommy Robinson was sentenced to 13 months in prison. Given that he has been doing his best to warn about creeping sharia in general, and Islamic rape-gangs in particular, and that he will be surrounded by Muslim inmates, we can fully expect he will be murdered in prison. That is one way to deal with those who seek to expose the evil which abounds in the UK today. Simply silence those who dare to alert others to what is going on. If he is killed while in prison, the powers that be can look the other way and just keep going on with business as usual. Just in case you have no clue as to who he is, and what his “crime” was, this news item offers a brief summary:

U.K. right-wing activist and journalist Tommy Robinson was arrested and reportedly jailed Friday after he filmed members of an alleged child grooming gang entering a court for trial – but the details of his purported sentence remain murky after the judge ordered the press not to report on the case. Robinson, the former head of the English Defense League and a longtime activist against Islam and Islamic migration, was arrested after he was filming men accused of being part of a gang that groomed children. Britain has been rocked by a series of child sex scandals perpetuated by gangs of predominantly Muslim men. www.foxnews.com/world/2018/05/26/right-wing-activist-tommy-robinson-reportedly-jailed-after-filming-outside-child-grooming-trial.html

Ezra Levant offers more detail:

Tommy did nothing wrong. But suddenly, seven police officers swarmed Tommy and threw him in the back of a police van. They said he was causing a disturbance, which is absurd — he was by himself on the street, with only a cameraman and a friend. But it got worse. Much worse. Within hours, Tommy was summoned before the judge. Tommy’s long-time lawyer was not informed of this. Rather, the court appointed a lawyer who didn’t know Tommy and wasn’t an expert in the specialized law of contempt of court. In a matter of minutes, Tommy was sent to prison — with a 13-month sentence. He is now in HM Prison Hull, a brutal facility near Leeds. A 13-month prison sentence for Tommy is tantamount to a death sentence — every Muslim criminal in prison will be trying to murder him. They’ve tried before. The only alternative is for Tommy to request to be put into solitary confinement — but no-one can live that way, locked up without any human contact for 23 hours a day. Not for a year straight. www.therebel.media/let_us_report_on_tommy_robinson

Commentator Bruce Bawer says this about the case:

-The swiftness with which injustice was meted out to Tommy Robinson is stunning. No, more than that: it is terrifying. -Without having access to his own lawyer, Robinson was summarily tried and sentenced to 13 months behind bars. He was then transported to Hull Prison. -Meanwhile, the judge who sentenced Robinson also ordered British media not to report on his case. Newspapers that had already posted reports of his arrest quickly took them down. All this happened on the same day. -In Britain, rapists enjoy the right to a full and fair trial, the right to the legal representation of their choice, the right to have sufficient time to prepare their cases, and the right to go home on bail between sessions of their trial. No such rights were offered, however, to Tommy Robinson.

He concludes:

For my part, I cannot for the life of me fathom why not a single prominent or powerful individual in all of the United Kingdom has come forward to challenge the mistreatment of Tommy Robinson – and thereby stand up for freedom of speech. Is the whole British establishment a bunch of cowards? I suppose we will know the answer to that question soon enough, if we do not know it already. www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12378/tommy-robinson-injustice

Mark Steyn put it this way: “You can say a lot of things about Tommy Robinson, but he’s one of the embarrassingly small number of Britons who recognizes the horror inflicted on those young and vulnerable girls on the receiving end of “diversity” and seeks to do something about it.” www.steynonline.com/8675/tommy-this-an-tommy-that-an-tommy-go-away Or as Joshua Winston writes:

If the government were at all smart and strategic, they would hire Tommy Robinson as an adviser on terrorism. He has consistently identified extremists, because he grew up among them in Luton. He has consistently told us the names of the mosques that are churning out radicals, as well as naming the imams. He has been right time after time, and instead of hiring Tommy (whose information could contribute to keeping us all safe), our government bent down to the MCB and MEND, both of whom have ties to extremists. All of this is okay with our government, because these Muslim organisations bring with them the Muslim voting bloc, and so the parliamentary doors are flung wide open to them at the same time that our liberties get thrown out the window. www.jihadwatch.org/2018/05/tommy-robinson-will-be-the-uks-tipping-point

And if you know nothing about the rape-gangs which have terrorised thousands of young girls in the UK, I refer you to an earlier piece of mine. There I said:

The Mirror’s 18-month investigation reveals abuse on unprecedented levels. We found: -Social workers knew of abuse in the 1990s but police took a decade to launch a probe. -Council staff viewed abused and trafficked children as “prostitutes” instead of victims, according to previously unseen files. -Authorities failed to keep details of abusers from Asian communities for fear of “racism” -Police failed to investigate one recent case five times until an MP intervened. -One victim said cops tried to stop her finding out why her abusers had not been prosecuted because they feared she would talk to us. -The scale of the abuse uncovered in Telford – population 170,000 – is feared to be the most brutal and long-running of all. -The Rotherham toll was put at 1,500 – but that was in a community of 260,000.

And read especially this please:

Night after night, I was forced to have sex with multiple men in disgusting takeaways and filthy houses. I must have been getting the morning after pill from a local clinic at least twice a week but no one asked any questions. I fell pregnant twice and had two abortions. Hours after my second termination, I was taken by one of my abusers to be raped by more men. The worst moment came just after my 16th birthday when I was drugged and gang raped by five men. Days later, the ringleader turned up at my house and told me he’d burn it down if I breathed a word of what had happened. billmuehlenberg.com/2018/03/17/the-rape-of-a-culture-the-death-of-england/

There is only one thing worse than this horrific sexual abuse, and this totalitarian trampling of freedom of speech, and the reprehensible treatment of the whistle-blower Tommy Robinson, and that is the appalling and damnable apathy and indifference of most people. Why do I suspect that 99 per cent of folks will never give a rip about Tommy and all this until – God forbid – their own daughter is savagely assaulted by rape gangs – usually Muslim rape gangs? The truth is, those who don’t care about all this are just as guilty of these horrific cases of sexual assault as the rape gangs are. There is a petition circulating on this. In just around four days it has garnered nearly a half million signatures. Let’s make it a million – even ten million. www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-free-tommy-robinson A few videos – of many – on this case that are well worth watching include this two-minute statement by Geert Wilders: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu1JLJk0H2Y So too is Paul Weston’s 17-minute video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8CPF1mK9Fo And see this 3-minute video by UK MEP Janice Atkinson: www.jihadwatch.org/2018/05/uk-mep-says-tommy-robinson-arrest-politically-motivated-amid-massive-protest-in-london-over-his-arrest Finally, watch this 12-minute video by Lauren Southern: kippercentral.com/2018/05/26/watch-lauren-southern-on-tommy-robinson-arrest/ Also, be aware that rallies for Tommy were held in various Australian cities yesterday. It is said that when he heard of this news, tears came to his eyes. www.xyz.net.au/australians-rally-tommy-robinson/ I am Tommy Robinson. So are you, if you care about freedom, about democracy, and the well-being of our children.

Some commentators - even Christian ones - place children such as Alfie Evans firmly in the category of 'hopeless cases with unrealistic parents.' Bu as stated in my own article on the subject, Medical Tyranny and Parental Authority, this case is more about undermining parental authority than about whether or not Alfie's life could have been saved, or even extended had it been managed differently. For every high-profile case like Alfie's there are many unknown ones in existence around us, with parents left to wonder exactly where, along the way, they lost control over their children's medical care. - Ed.

[Apr 1, 2018. Photo credit Herald Sun]

Monday, 19 March 2018 22:06

The Rape of a Culture: The Death of England

I have written often now on the deep decline of the UK, and now we may be safe to say it is just about officially dead. At the same time it is banning and detaining brave individuals who dare to speak out about the evils of sharia law and the war on freedom, UK officials are covering up and making excuses for diabolical rape gangs, most of them Muslim. As to the free speech bans, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been banned from entering the country in the past, all for daring to warn about the dangers of political Islam. And more recently figures like Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone from the UK and Lauren Southern from Canada are getting similar treatment. While they are being excluded from the country or banned from speaking out, the UK continues to keep its doors wide open to Islamic immigration, giving Muslims privileged and preferential status.

Published in Islam

Read more...

Monday, 19 February 2018 16:27

Adoption Versus Surrogacy

Many people arguing for the moral and social legitimacy of surrogacy will rather recklessly throw out the issue of adoption, believing that the two are quite similar things. But the truth is, they could not be more different. This is especially noticeable when we focus the discussion on children and their wellbeing. The main difference certainly involves the children themselves. In adoption there is a need for children to be looked after, so substitute parents are brought in to look after them. In surrogacy there are no children involved – at first. They are deliberately created, or manufactured, to satisfy adult desires. As one relinquishing mother put it, “In adoption, a family sought a child in need of a family. In surrogacy, you are creating children for adults’ needs.” Moreover, in adoption legislation, the interests of the child are clearly paramount, something which is not the case in surrogacy. As one bioethicist puts it:

Adoption standards and practice have been constantly revised and refined in the light of new understandings developing in the field. . . . It is illegal to take a consent to adoption prior to the birth of the child, for the reason that a woman cannot be expected to make a lifelong decision for herself and her baby in the vacuum of the non-existence of the child.

As Kevin Andrews has remarked: “Adoption is a community response to the necessitous circumstances of a child already conceived and born, which differs markedly to the circumstances of a child conceived and born for the purpose of transfer to another couple”. Ethicist Leon Kass says this: “We practice adoption because there are abandoned children who need good homes. We do not, and would not, encourage people deliberately to generate children for others to adopt.” Or as Maggie Gallagher has put it:

Surrogate contracts and adoptions are not comparable. Adoption is the fulfilment, not the negation, of parental responsibility. Especially in a country where abortion is cheap and easy, when a woman gives her baby up for adoption she has thereby acknowledged her obligations to her child. Almost always, adoption is part of a conscious attempt to do what is best for the child. The surrogate mother does not admit she has any special obligations to her child; she does not admit that it is hers. The child cannot obligate her, she obligates it: It is a product, conceived for sale and use.

David Blankenhorn also adds his voice to the fundamental nature of adoption:

Adoption is a wonderfully pro-child act. Adults respond to a child’s loss with altruistic, healing love. . . . Adoption does not deny but in fact presupposes the importance of natural parents. For this reason, despite all the good it does, adoption is ultimately a derivative and compensatory institution. It is not a stand-alone good, primarily because its existence depends upon prior human loss.

Natural parents of course largely disappear in surrogacy arrangements. Ethicist David VanDrunen discusses the differences found between adoption and surrogacy. He speaks about the moral question we must face as to “whether we ought intentionally to create situations in which biological links between generations are attenuated, confused, or even ruptured. In essence, third-part-parenthood arrangements intentionally create adoption scenarios.” But this is how they differ. Adoption, he says, is “a charitable act that rescues abandoned and orphaned children.” He continues:

Surely it is a charitable act – precisely because we recognise these children’s tragic circumstances. In an ordinary adoption situation the adoptive parents are responding to a child’s tragic situation and seeking to bring good out of it. In a third-party-parent arrangement, however, the parents are creating a child’s tragic situation, a situation in which he will be taken away from his birth mother or be raised by someone other than his biological mother or father.

And Jessica Kerns, a product of surrogacy, whom I mention above, also explains why we are dealing with apples and oranges here:

It really is the buying and selling of babies, and the commodification of women’s bodies. There’s a huge difference between the adoption world and the donor-conceived world. [The] institution [of adoption] was not … created for the parents, to give them a kid. It was created for the opposite, to put children in a home, because they’re here already and we’re responding to a catastrophe. Donor-conceived [children], we’re creating them with the intent of separating them from their biology, and you know … it’s vastly different.

Bioethicist John Ling offers us the big picture on all this, and is well worth quoting from here. He says:

Should we view surrogacy not only as the commissioning mother wanting a child, but also as the surrogate mother – and in law, she is the legal mother – not wanting her child? She has deliberately embarked on a pregnancy with the clear intention that she will abandon her baby. The birth of any child is surrounded by a spectrum of emotions, perhaps none stronger than that of the mother’s love for the child she has carried and delivered. The surrogate knowingly sets out to ignore these natural instincts. Furthermore, can a commissioning mother develop this maternal love without the psychological and physical springs of this bonding, namely, pregnancy and childbirth? Surrogacy is not like adoption. The great difference is that adoption seeks to enhance the love for, and security of, the child. Surrogacy has the long-term, premeditated intention of just the opposite. It should be shunned.

One lobby group, Them Before Us, is quite concerned about this and the other new reproductive technologies. Katy Faust reminds us once more what the core issue is here. It is all about the child. The interests of the child should always be paramount here. As she says in an article highlighting the differences between surrogacy and adoption:

Them Before Us supports adoption, when it is properly understood. Adoption must always be viewed as a child-centric institution, not simply as a means for adults to have children. No adult – heterosexual, homosexual, or single – has a “right” to adopt. Rather, every child has a right to parents. In adoption, the intended parents are not the clients. The child is the client.

Published in IVF & Surrogacy

Read more...