Gays sought to serve in the US military : Click play to play, in the alternative right click link and select view in new window/tab to download
Article by Marc Aupiais
Note by Marc Aupiais
Barack Hussein Obama's Democrats with some Republican support have passed a bill reversing an ancient ban on homosexuals in the US military, through both houses of parliament, just before the Democrats lose their historic majority in historic Republican gains from an electorate angry with Obama policies including on abortion in re healthcare and secondarily the economy.
The US President, Barack Obama is due to sign the bill into law soon, having successfully pushed it through a lame duck session of the US parliament, before the newly elected politicians reach Washington. The move is expected to help get support for Obama from the far left in American politics, but has raised the specter of Societal Engineering, and of a military not based on what best serves a country, but rather based on ideology and a right to fight- for some but still not for women. The military will have 60 days to enact changes when the bill is signed, although there are already reports of intimidation of military chaplains to teach their individual religions more in line with government policy according to the Catholic News Agency service.
One in five American men who have sex with men have HIV/AIDS, 4.4 of ten of these don't know. The suspected wikileaks source was a homosexualist who openly served in the US military and released the documents after a clash with his male partner.
Women are still not allowed to serve the US military on the frontlines, and a large number of personelle in the largely conservative military have said they will cut their terms short or not re-enlist. Pastors and priests who believe homosexuality is immoral- that being the majority serving US troops, who quoting the bible called it an abomination- have been told to be silent on their beliefs or leave the military.
The move has also been reported to the Muslim world and in Africa, where American objectives are already failing.
The Catholic bishop to the US military in accordance with Vatican rules and the Catechism of the Catholic church opposed the move.
Ironically, or intentionally, instead of imposing silence on homosexuals in the US military- the Obama administration is now silencing Christians.
Statistically those who engage in a homosexual lifestyle are more prone to suicide or other anti-social behaviour, and have a very high prevalence of STDs, and promiscuity according to medical statistics. HIV prevention medication is often tested on this group- considered the canary on the mine when it comes to STD infections.
South Africa has both homosexual and HIV positive personelle allowed on the front lines. The military is considered ageing, under staffed and not fit for combat by experts.
America also passed a 750 billion military spending budget- the largest in history, even though experts across the world including American wikileak leaked cables state that America cannot win the war in Afghanistan, and has yet to stabilise Iraq according to experts on the ground and elsewhere.
Showing posts with label American Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Democrats. Show all posts
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Gays sought to serve in the US military
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
No comments:
Labels:
America,
American Democrats,
American Republicans,
Americas Politics,
Conflict watch,
Homosexuality
with reference to the place:
Capitol Hill, Washington, DC, USA
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
USA links women with homosexuals at the UN
(SACNS Americas News; Social Justice South Africa)
français | English | Afrikaans | español
SACNS background quotes:
Article by Marc Aupiais
Rosemary DiCarlo who is the United Nations Ambassador for host Nation the United States, has decided to risk women's rights, so often abused: for the sake of pursuing homosexual special interests.
She has replaced violence against women: a very direct condemnation of practices so widespread, with sexual and gender-based violence in a speech given to the United Nations this past weekend.
A recent federal study in the United States of America, found that one in five so-called homosexuals and so-called bisexuals were infected with HIV, with forty-four out of one hundred of these infected unaware of their condition. That is twenty times the national average.
Discrimination against homosexuals is often linked to HIV aids, and to the high suicide rates in the given population and among children adopted by them.
Abortion, has a real economic cost and affects demand and supply ratios.
Editorially
Linking women with homosexuality, and separating sex and gender, are moves which are sure to create animosity in the United Nations. It is also sure to put women's rights back centuries.
français | English | Afrikaans | español
SACNS background quotes:
Barack Obama's UN Ambassador lumps women with gays: endangering efforts to promote women's special interests! - SACNS Quotes Analysis - 27 (28th in RSA time) September 2010
Why America's lumping of gay and women's rights damages equality - Aupiais Site reviews - 27 (28th in RSA time) September 2010
Why promoting homosexuality costs lives? HIV AIDS for one! - SACNS Quotes Analysis- 27 September 2010
Homosexuals the typhoid Mary of HIV AIDS - Aupiais Site Reviews - 27 September 2010
Article by Marc Aupiais
Rosemary DiCarlo who is the United Nations Ambassador for host Nation the United States, has decided to risk women's rights, so often abused: for the sake of pursuing homosexual special interests.
She has replaced violence against women: a very direct condemnation of practices so widespread, with sexual and gender-based violence in a speech given to the United Nations this past weekend.
A recent federal study in the United States of America, found that one in five so-called homosexuals and so-called bisexuals were infected with HIV, with forty-four out of one hundred of these infected unaware of their condition. That is twenty times the national average.
Discrimination against homosexuals is often linked to HIV aids, and to the high suicide rates in the given population and among children adopted by them.
Abortion, has a real economic cost and affects demand and supply ratios.
Editorially
Linking women with homosexuality, and separating sex and gender, are moves which are sure to create animosity in the United Nations. It is also sure to put women's rights back centuries.
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
No comments:
with reference to the place:
United Nations, 304 E 44th St, New York, NY 10017-4402, USA
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Thursday, 19 August 2010
An Archbishop, a Mosque and the New York Mayor
(Catholic Watchdog South Africa)
Article by Marc Aupiais
SACNS Quote Analysis:
The Mosque that divides America
As Europe debates banning Islamic symbols, for the sake of women's, and feminist special interest campaigns, and cultural special interests, America is considering the placement of a Mosque by the September 11 site. The Democratic party, with Islamic constituencies (and two Muslim lawmakers), is taking the gamble of supporting the mosque by what to many Americans is something that has largely seemed to have been seen as a sacred site- a memorial of sorts. A memorial so strong, that it has been the basis of war after war, and the cause of many American deaths, as American special interests are pursued against Islamic special interests group Al Qaeda, and those accused by America of being their allies. Wars on a loose group of alleged allies whom the West has accused of using terror tactics.
Whether the mosque will increase the position of those opposing Islamic special interests, or increase the position of those supporting Islamic special interests, is at the heart of the position of the Catholic archbishop of the area of which it's concerned. In his view, building a mosque by the site, may harm Islamic special interests. He sites a Catholic example, where a Catholic building was not kept, but abandoned nearby a German concentration camp, this out of a view that it was most prudent at the time not to keep the given nearby site for religious purposes. This given the sensibilities, especially due to the positions of some of those promoting Jewish, and other special interests, after the Second World War. Sensibilities which had extended right into 1993, when Pope John Paul II, had the site abandoned.
That is to say
"Speaking during an impromptu news conference at Covenant House, a Catholic shelter in Manhattan for homeless youth, Archbishop Dolan invoked the example of Pope John Paul II, who in 1993 ordered Catholic nuns to move from their convent at the former Auschwitz death camp after protests from Jewish leaders.
“He’s the one who said, ‘Let’s keep the idea, and maybe move the address,’ ” the archbishop said. “It worked there; might work here.”"JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ, writing for the New York Times (secular; Independent; American; Allegedly promotes Democratic party special interests)18 / 08 | August / 2010
The Archbishop is referenced by the New York Times, as claiming his feelings on the mosque are not strong, and that he is prepared to mediate for the two sides. New York Mayor, the former Democrat, then Republican, now an independent: Michael Bloomberg, had a Catholic priest standing by him when he stated his belief that the building of the mosque was to be allowed, as a matter of legal rights, according to the New York Times.
South African Catholic News Service: Twitter|Facebook|Facebook Discuss|CAF|YouTube|UStream News|UStream Editorial | Email
As an internationally collaborative: initiative to provide a more transparent, accurate view of the world: This service is brought to you by the Scripturelink Search Engine (quotations, or confers in this service/initiative, are provided to give perspective independently, or reference some external sources: and do not imply collaboration, or any kind of affiliation, or co-operation with other services, or initiatives, which are quoted or noted in articles)
Check the accuracy, and perspectives of our contents via the above listed search engine: against other "Catholic" services
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Thursday, August 19, 2010
No comments:
with reference to the place:
Financial District, New York, NY, USA
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Thursday, 12 August 2010
US voters oppose move to allow open gays in US armed forces- latest poll results
(Social Justice South Africa)
Article by Marc Aupiais
For our source quotes, analysis, and additional information, please see:
SACNS Quote Analysis:Contrary to polls, by homosexual special interests supporting organisations, a conservative group, opposing homosexual special interests in this case has conducted a poll- this time focused on persons who plan to vote in the upcoming elections (presumably those to replace representatives later in this year)- the results were the opposite of prior polls which did not focus on professed planned voters. Respondents, the conservative pollsters claimed- opposed prioritizing lifting the American ban on homosexuals in the military.
US voters oppose open gays in US armed forces- latest poll THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 2010
A network of major opponents to a homosexual special interests effort by US President Barack Obama, and Michael D. Palm Center, to legalize service by homosexuals in the US military has conducted a poll of 1000 respondents who claimed they planned to vote in November elections: which could see an end to Democrat majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The Military Culture Coalition, said that: potential voters nearly unanimously felt that overturning the 1992 law, should not be a focus for the American Congress. Over 50% thought US President Barack Obama was putting political games ahead of principle.
On 9th July 2010, Reuters reported on objections, that those in a group most forcefully pushing the repeal have had, to surveying troops, as to whether they would react negatively, to open homosexuals in the military, calling any survey biased. Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military is the name the Michael D. Palm Center, once went by: this group is the one which opposes surveys of troops, and is often quoted by secular services.
Section 654, Title 10, is the law in question for repeal. A 2006 poll by those promoting the repeal, found similar results to the current one, with 69% neutral or opposed to homosexuals openly serving in the US military.
Contrary to media reports- "Don't ask don't tell" does not ban open homosexuals, but rather all homosexuals from military service in the United States. However, the system "don't ask don't tell" removed mandatory questions on soldiers' sexual attractions from questionnaires they were compelled to fill out. Whether the system is actually enforced by the Obama administration has come into question, after it emerged that the alleged wikileaks leak- who revealed thousands of US military secrets about war efforts in active war zones- had for a long time served as an open homosexual, and homosexual special interests activist in the US military.
For more information on the history of the debate involving the law which "Don't Ask Don't Tell" relates to, please view our archive article:
Bias in Reuters? :Pentagon says troop survey not biased against gays | Reuters SATURDAY, JULY 10, 2010
South African Catholic News Service: Twitter|Facebook|Facebook Discuss|CAF|YouTube|UStream News|UStream Editorial | Email
As an internationally collaborative: initiative to provide a more transparent, accurate view of the world: This service is brought to you by the Scripturelink Search Engine (quotations, or confers in this service/initiative, are provided to give perspective independently, or reference some external sources: and do not imply collaboration, or any kind of affiliation, or co-operation with other services, or initiatives, which are quoted or noted in articles)
Check the accuracy, and perspectives of our contents via the above listed search engine: against other "Catholic" services
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Thursday, August 12, 2010
No comments:
Labels:
America,
American Democrats,
Conflict watch,
Islamic conflicts,
Reuters,
SACNS,
Social Justice South Africa,
True Marriage
with reference to the place:
Washington, DC, USA
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
"The end of Catholic Healthcare in Boston": conscience protection of healthcare workers much more likely to end!- critics
(Catholic Watchdog South Africa)
Article by Marc Aupiais
For our source quotes, analysis, and additional information, please see:
SACNS Quote Analysis:"The end of Catholic Healthcare in Boston": conscience protection of healthcare workers much more likely to end!- say some sources
The Coalition to Save Catholic Health Care, is sending a letter to the pope, in a last ditch attempt, to prevent the sale of what is reportedly the last 6 Catholic Hospitals in Boston, USA: the Caritas Christi hospital system.
Previously Catholic Action League, had lead the charge against yet another sale of church controlled assets, stating that it would end 150 years of Catholic healthcare in Boston, among other concerns. The suggested buyer is secular capitalist firm: Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. of New York, named after the three headed dog, which guards Hades in Greek mythology. There is a contractual clause which demands the retaining of Catholic identity, but this can be done away with should the investment firm decide to pay about 3 percent (%) of the asking price to an approved archdiocesan charity, that is, seemingly if such Catholic identity becomes "unlawful or materially burdensome".
Some of the more outspoken criticisms of the clause come from the Catholic pro-life:
"But we already know that adherence to Catholic moral standards is unlawful for any hospital that participates in the Massachusetts universal health care insurance program (the model for ObamaCare), because the program requires participants to provide abortion, contraception, sterilization, etc. In fact, the archdiocese’s inability to participate in the Massachusetts program is precisely the reason why Caritas is unprofitable and is being sold. So the termination of Catholic standards is inevitable. Why the charade to mislead the public that Caritas will remain Catholic?"Judie Brown writing for American Life League (Catholic; Independent; American; pro-life) article hosted on Catholic Exchange (Catholic; Independent; American)12 / 07 | July / 2010
The choice to sell the hospitals to the second major buyer, comes as the hospitals, faced bankruptcy, after refusing to enter a state (not federal) government subsidized system in the state of Massachusetts, in the United States of America, which reportedly would have demanded that they provide contraception, abortion, and sterilization as services.
Critics of the deal, cite the fact that free services to the poor may suffer, as well as services to the mentally ill, and that conscience protection of health workers, and ethical trustworthiness of each hospital may be done away with. A previous deal in attempts to save the hospitals, was walked away from, when it became clear in the opinion of officials that the Catholic ethics of the hospitals would be severely compromised.
Caritas director James Karam, has admitted that he cannot guarantee the investment firm will maintain what would seem to be the archdiocese of Boston's last remaining Catholic hospitals. If this deal does not go through, it is seen as likely, by the archdiocese, that the debt ridden hospitals will soon be forced to close. Their high asking price, likely is due to state and federal investments in healthcare making hospitals more attractive to investors.
South African Catholic News Service: Twitter|Facebook|Facebook Discuss|CAF|YouTube|UStream News|UStream Editorial | Email
As an internationally collaborative: initiative to provide a more transparent, accurate view of the world: This service is brought to you by the Scripturelink Search Engine (quotations, or confers in this service/initiative, are provided to give perspective independently, or reference some external sources: and do not imply collaboration, or any kind of affiliation, or co-operation with other services, or initiatives, which are quoted or noted in articles)
Check the accuracy, and perspectives of our contents via the above listed search engine: against other "Catholic" services
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Thursday, August 12, 2010
No comments:
Labels:
American Democrats,
Americas General News,
Americas news,
Americas Politics,
Catholic Watchdog South Africa,
Obama
with reference to the place:
Boston, MA, USA
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Monday, 9 August 2010
Just like Fort Hood: Wikileaks alleged traitor signs were all there
(Catholic Watchdog South Africa)
Article by Marc Aupiais
Like the Islamist special interest cause activist soldiers who detonated bombs against US troops in the mid-east, or the Fort Hood shooter; with the wikileaks fiasco for the US military, the signs were all there:
The alleged leak was reportedly a homosexual (colloquial: gay) special interests activist, who aired publicly, his breaking of US law, in pursuit of his special interests: as a homosexual in the military; and publicly made known his increasingly malcontent style opinions.
"The Wikileaks story is all about revelations. But very few news stories covering that controversy have covered the fuller story. What don’t they want to reveal?
The UK Telegraph shows the clues were there. Right upfront, the Telegraph notes that the prime suspect in the leaks, Pfc Bradley Manning, ‘raged against the US Army and society at large in the days before he allegedly downloaded thousands of secret military documents.’ The logical question ‘what did they know and when did they know it?’ applies.
The Pentagon, which is investigating the source of the leak, is expected to study Mr Manning’s background to ascertain if they missed any warnings when he applied to join the US Army. The postings on his Facebook page are also likely to form part of the inquiry.
That’s more than British understatement. It’s the assumption that information well known in Mr. Manning’s world and publicly available to anyone of interest is finally going to figure into an investigation that should have started many months ago and might have prevented the damage.
Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: “Bradley Manning didn’t want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast.”
At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: “Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn’t have anything left.”
Then he was left by his boyfriend, the article notes, and Manning was “livid.”
His tagline on his personal page reads: “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!” …
Pictures on Mr Manning’s Facebook page include photos of him on school trips during his time in Wales and at a gay rights rally, where he is holding up a placard demanding equality on “the battlefield”."InForum Blog by Sheila Liaugminas (Catholic; Independent; American; Conservative)08 / 08 | August / 2010
Sheila goes on to note how the alleged de jure traitor became more and more frustrated. She also notes, that just like in the case of the Islamist special interests activist who shot up Fort Hood, the whistle blower in this case, had been open in his opposition to the US military, and openly in this case displayed allegedly: conduct which in US law was illegal. "Don't ask don't tell"- simply did away with questions of sexuality in recruitment surveys- required of troops: it did not decriminalize homosexuality in the military. However, no matter the amounts of awards she has won, Sheila misses a point: it was not simply a laxity of enforcement as regards open disobedience against the military via don't ask don't tell defiance.
The US military, like other institutions has vastly neglected the internet. Further, the Fort Hood case, makes it clear: very little at all is enforced by the very lax US military.
For America and its allies: the Wikileaks leak was a terrible scorpion sting against the Achilles Tendon, a tragedy, which aided the rest of the world: in accusations against America for a seemingly dirty war: not that less read media sources weren't reporting on such a war in any case.
The problem with such alleged radicals as this individual- lies not in their sexual orientation: which here is circumstantial, specific to this case, but in their alleged preparedness to destroy structures designed to save lives. The bigger problem, is that once again the US system never caught this individual. This is a problem for America, which has increasingly become more desperate as Obama leads war efforts into ever larger troop deployments.
Then again, this is only a problem for America and its allies: and the man if a traitor: is a traitor against America's military: after all: President Obama: said Wikileaks put American lives at risk: they likely also saved many non-American lives.
And transparency is no absolute virtue.
"Homosexuality" can also be a sign of past trauma- or of identity crises: the second of which may well have been why a soldier would allegedly betray their country for the sake of whatever cause. His alleged treachery against America, has certainly given the rest of the world much to speak of. It may cost American lives, but that is not so much a concern as how America appears to be fighting the war, it would be quite apt for a United Nations investigation to be launched now, as happened against North Korea, when they allegedly shot at a South Korean ship. Accusations of a trigger happy US army, which allegedly carries out many abuses: are certainly noteworthy, if accurate. Treachery is an internal matter for America, what the United States does with their alleged traitors is their business- so long as it is justly handled: this should not detract from the importance of any such accusations, especially if well documented.
What is noteworthy, is that once again, it has been shown: how lax and incompetent US intelligence appears to be. This is no less important than the fact that a basic outline of their war strategy has now been revealed, along with information that America's Islamist special interest cause enemies can now download for free.
South African Catholic News Service: Twitter|Facebook|Facebook Discuss|CAF|YouTube|UStream News|UStream Editorial | Email
As an internationally collaborative: initiative to provide a more transparent, accurate view of the world: This service is brought to you by the Scripturelink Search Engine (quotations, or confers in this service/initiative, are provided to give perspective independently, or reference some external sources: and do not imply collaboration, or any kind of affiliation, or co-operation with other services, or initiatives, which are quoted or noted in articles)
Check the accuracy, and perspectives of our contents via the above listed search engine: against other "Catholic" services
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Monday, August 09, 2010
No comments:
Labels:
American Democrats,
Americas General News,
Americas news,
Americas Politics,
Conflict watch,
consciencious objection,
Fort Hood,
Islamic conflicts
with reference to the place:
Washington, DC, USA
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Saturday, 17 July 2010
USA: Montana: 5 years old's to be taught Sex Ed; "Graphic Images in art help people understand sexuality"
(Social Justice South Africa)
Article by Marc Aupiais
"Katie Walker, Communications Director for American Life League, appears on CBN News Morning Edition, to discuss Montana's plan to introduce graphic sex curriculum to public school children as young as five."
[ALL talks on the shocking decision on CBN]
From telling high-school kids that graphic sexual images in art help us understand our sexuality "Erotic images in art help understand Sex"- CBN, to graphically describing all sorts of sexual acts verbally to fifth graders, to telling kids in grade 1 about gay's "people can love people of the same gender", a Planned Parenthood Sex Education backed sex education program in Montana, USA, starting with 5 year olds, and up, has sparked controversy.
Planned Parenthood, while paid to teach sex education, makes billions off of abortions, and contraceptive every year. Their funding in education, and abortion has gained much since Barack Obama took the presidency, given the US president's prior relationship with the abortion firm.
The curriculum is also from SEICUS (possible error by ALL in spelling of the acronym) Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, another similar group. The program being which is part of the curriculum put forward by the Montana school board, especially upsets American Life League, as it is believed that by bringing graphic sexuality into the lives of pre-puberty children could cause very negative side effects on teen pregnancy, and on learning ability. ALL calls it child abuse. Allegedly it is an attempt to disrupt children's sexual latency period. Recent research has found that abstinence only education is more effective than contraceptive education, and that children who are exposed to abstinence only education are more likely to use a condom if they do have sex.
In South Africa, it is a statutory crime to purposely expose children to real, or simulated sex, meaning that such a program would likely be termed exposing a minor to pornography in South Africa's strict sexual laws.
CNN, a liberal news network also notes the story, saying that the 5 year old's are taught about correct terms for private parts:
A Blog Also carrying the video
South African Catholic News Service: Twitter|Facebook|Facebook Discuss|CAF|YouTube|UStream News|UStream Editorial
As an internationally collaborative: initiative to provide a more transparent, accurate view of the world: This service is brought to you by the Scripturelink Search Engine (quotations, or confers in this service/initiative, are provided to give perspective independently, or reference some external sources: and do not imply collaboration, or any kind of affiliation, or co-operation with other services, or initiatives, which are quoted or noted in articles)
Check the accuracy, and perspectives of our contents via the above listed search engine: against other "Catholic" services
Subscribe to our articles via email:
Subscribe to South African Catholic
Add your email to our system to: subscribe to: "South African Catholic News Service"'s dispatches: via email
View Archives
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Saturday, July 17, 2010
No comments:
Labels:
American Democrats,
Americas General News,
Americas news,
Obama,
Planned Parenthood,
SACNS,
Social Justice South Africa
with reference to the place:
Montana, USA
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Friday, 16 July 2010
United States of America: Oil Stops Flowing into Gulf: For Now
United States of America: Oil Stops Flowing into Gulf: For Now
View Larger Map
(World Tainted Green)
Article by Marc Aupiais
"The 3 month oil leak which has caused America’s worst ever environmental disaster, may finally be over.
BP says it has at least temporarily stopped the flow in the Gulf of Mexico, raising hopes it has been plugged for good."(EuroNews [Secular; Independent: but officially contracted as a bridge between the EU and public; European] 16 / 07 | July / 2010
The New York Times (Secular; Independent; American; Liberal; accused of being part of a conspiracy against the Catholic church by Vatican vetted Jesuit paper La Civiltà Cattolica [reference]):
"Live video from the seabed Friday morning showed that all was quiet around the top of the well, suggesting the test assessing the integrity of the well was continuing. Earlier in the week, Kent Wells, a senior vice president for BP, had said that the longer the test continued the better, because it would indicate that the pressure inside the well was holding.
The oil stopped flowing around 2:25 p.m. Thursday when the last of several valves was closed on a cap at the top of the well, Mr. Wells said.
The announcement that the oil had stopped flowing into the Gulf came after a series of failed attempts to cap or contain the runaway well that tested the nation’s patience. Mr. Wells emphasized that pressure tests were being conducted to determine the status of the well, which is now sealed like a soda bottle. BP and the government could decide to allow the oil to flow again and try to collect all of it; they could allow the oil to flow and, if tests show the well can withstand the pressure from the cap, close the well during hurricanes; or they could leave the well closed permanently.
The last option seems unlikely, but whatever the decision, the cap is an interim measure until a relief well can plug the leak for good.
“I am very pleased that there’s no oil going into the Gulf of Mexico,” Mr. Wells said, “but we just started the test and I don’t want to create a false sense of excitement.”"labelled as 17 / 07 | July / 2010
While getting good press from Catholic Agencies, for their use of Catholic Charties, an America Catholic arm of Caritas Internationalis, in order to help those affected, and for application of the principle of subsidiarity, BP has also gained international notoriety, for the use of chemical banned elsewhere to clean up the oil spill in the beginning. The chemicals are reportedly toxic to human beings, and British financial agency, Reuters was informed that it would have been better for the environment if the oil had simply been kept out to sea, as the burning and use of chemicals was not necessary to clear up the light grade of oils. BP had been listed on a stock exchange of companies acceptable for Christians to invest in (vetted by Vatican officials and others) prior the oil spill.
BP (British Petroleum) itself was not managing the oil rig at the time of the accident, having let it out to another company, the rig, being a vessel was not registered in America. BP's safety record in the past has also been questioned. The Obama administration, had decided not to further regulate the offshore drilling industry in the United States of America, in order to pursue Cap and Trade and other anthropological climate change theory efforts. The people most affected, seem to support continued drilling, as their livelihood often depends on oil. A ban on offshore drilling in the Gulf, which the White House desired, was ruled as against the public interest in an American court, something the White House chose to appeal.
South African Catholic News Service: Twitter|Facebook|Facebook Discuss|CAF|YouTube|UStream News|UStream Editorial
As an internationally collaborative: initiative to provide a more transparent, accurate view of the world: This service is brought to you by the Scripturelink Search Engine (quotations, or confers in this service/initiative, are provided to give perspective independently, or reference some external sources: and do not imply collaboration, or any kind of affiliation, or co-operation with other services, or initiatives, which are quoted or noted in articles)
Check the accuracy, and perspectives of our contents via the above listed search engine: against other "Catholic" services
Subscribe to our articles via email:
Subscribe to South African Catholic
Add your email to our system to: subscribe to: "South African Catholic News Service"'s dispatches: via email
View Archives
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Friday, July 16, 2010
No comments:
Labels:
American Democrats,
BP,
Obama,
oil,
SACNS,
World Tainted Green
with reference to the place:
Gulf of Mexico
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Saturday, 10 July 2010
Bias in Reuters? :Pentagon says troop survey not biased against gays | Reuters
(Social Justice South Africa)
Analytical Article by Marc Aupiais
Article summary: looks into either an error or a misrepresentation by a Reuters article, as well as into the arguments surrounding a US policy and the law that policy stifles.
Pentagon says troop survey not biased against gays | Reuters
So goes a headline in a Reuters (British; Independent; Secular) piece on the controversial repeal of the policy of don't ask don't tell, or so they inaccurately claim to start. Don't ask don't tell won't be repealed: all it entailed was taking questions on a trooper's sexuality from questionnaires, without lifting the ban on homosexuals in the military: creating the de facto position, that homosexuals who wanted to serve would keep quiet and other troops would not ask if they were that. Pretty much the same as if our army were to get rid of the question of how old a trooper was.
The more concerning issue lies here, to quote their article:
"The Palm Center, a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara, was one of the groups critical of the overall polling approach by the Pentagon.
"Why would you ask those questions unless you thought there was something potentially wrong with (that group)?" asked Palm Center Director Aaron Belkin. "You would never have a survey asking: Would you share a shower with a Catholic soldier?""09 / 07 | July / 2010
It makes it seem as though the man and centre quoted have no specific agenda, not so if one researches his history and the centre's history (interestingly they call it the Palm Center, and not the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military [CSSMM] by which it was often referred to as in the past, before it decided on a name change it seems),
"WASHINGTON, D.C., June 20, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A pro-homosexual group known as Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM), a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, claims to have unearthed a current Pentagon document that lists homosexuality as a psychological disorder."LifesiteNews (Catholic; Independent; Canadian; Read in and trusted in the Vatican) 20 / 06 | June / 2006
The Palm Center is more than simply an activist group, even liberal media such as CNN see it as much more:
"The Palm Center, which circulated the statement calling for the repeal of the "don't ask-don't tell" policy, is looking to President-elect Barack Obama to address the controversial issue of gays in the"CNN (Activist; Left leaning; American; Independent; Secular) 17 / 12 | November / 2008
In other words, the very group with instituted the call for a change of policy is being quoted like an independent objective source which disagrees.
NRO National Review Online's conservative think tank further notes how the Palm Center has been an active proponent of doing away with the law, without military input why they would possibly oppose any survey:
"Someone needs to break this news to the Michael D. Palm Center, an activist group based at the University of California–Santa Barbara that used to call itself the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military. On Monday the Palm Center issued a pretentious and legally absurd report claiming that President Obama can indeed snap his fingers with an executive order suspending enforcement of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. That law, Section 654, Title 10, differs from Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” administrative policy because it states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in uniform.
Even Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak, co-sponsor of a House bill (H.R. 1283) to repeal the 1993 law, recently told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that President Obama should not try to get around Congress on a matter such as this. “We are a nation of laws,” said Sestak, “and in the last administration we saw executive actions that seemed to bend if not break those laws.”
The Palm Center’s desperation strategy seemed to be reflected during last Sunday’s ABC News program “This Week.” Host George Stephanopoulos aggressively questioned Pres. Barack Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, on the issue of homosexuals in the military. Acknowledging congressional and military resistance to Obama’s position on the issue, Stephanopoulos suggested that the president should try to circumvent the law by suspending enforcement.
The question reflected the Palm Center’s latest polemic, which encourages the president to stop enforcing the law, rendering it essentially meaningless. Using contrived arguments, the Palm Center gay-studies scholars unconvincingly tried to justify unilateral non-enforcement of the law. The document advocates an interpretation based on the rarely used authority that underlies presidential “stop-loss” orders that sometimes are issued to keep troops in the field during a military or national emergency."National Review Online (American; Independent; Secular; Conservative)analytical editorial on 14 / 05 | May / 2009
The current poll seems to be addressing concerning results in the past which say that there may be a mass exodus of American troops if homosexual troops are allowed to serve de jure in the US military:
"The 2008 Military Times Poll asked a new question that produced jaw-dropping results: “If the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly, how would you respond?” The article emphasized that 71% of respondents said they would continue to serve. But almost 10% said “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” and 14% said “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” Only 6% expressed “No Opinion.” Before voting to repeal the law, Section 654, Title 10, members of Congress, and President-elect Barack Obama, ought to do the math.
[...]
The December 2006 news release announcing the often-quoted Zogby Poll on this subject, which was paid for by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (now called the Michael D. Palm Center), blatantly spun the story by omitting mention of responses to the key question asked — Should homosexuals serve openly in the military? The 26% of Zogby respondents who favored repeal of the law could not compete with the combined 69% of people who said that they were opposed or neutral on that question. This was hardly a mandate for radical cultural change in the military."National Review Online (American; Independent; Secular; Conservative)analytical editorial on 02 / 01 | January / 2009
Christian Science Monitor, an American secular service which supports lifting of the ban says:
"“Is that where we as a country want to be? I think not,” says Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is lobbying for a repeal to the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) ban.
More than 25 countries specifically allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military, including all original NATO signatories except the US and Turkey.
Some 16 countries – including Pakistan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen – bar open homosexuals from serving in the military. Across Africa, 37 countries declare homosexuality outright illegal – inside the military or out. Last week, two civilian men in Malawi were convicted and sentenced to serve 14 years in prison for homosexuality.
[...]
Already, US service members serve alongside gays and lesbians. The Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that some 66,000 gay and lesbian troops serve (pdf download) in the US forces today. And Britain, a key ally in Iraq and Afghanistan, has allowed homosexuals to openly serve in its military for a decade.
Canada and Australia lifted their bans in 1992, followed by Israel in 1993, and South Africa in 1998. The lift on bans did not result in a mass “coming out,” the Palm Center found, nor were there instances of increased harassment of or by gay people.
When Britain looked to repeal its ban, its military initially considered DADT. But they found it was a “disaster,” which “hadn’t worked,” was “unworkable” and was “hypocritical,” according to the Palm Center’s report, "Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer."
Instead, the British military based its regulations on the Australian model, which simply ban public displays of affection, harassment and inappropriate relationships – regardless of whether the couple was gay or straight. In 2002, the British Ministry of Defense reconfirmed that “there has been no discernible impact on operational effectiveness” as a result of ending the gay ban and that “no further review of the Armed Forces policy on homosexuality” was necessary.
[...]
Concern that the repeal of DADT will reduce the number of volunteers is unfounded, according to Dr. Nathaniel Frank, primary author of the Palm Center Report. In Britain and Canada, roughly two-thirds of the military said it would refuse to serve with open gays, but in reality no more than three people in each country actually resigned, according to the report. [Although it is not resignations which are referred to in American polls but people who refuse to re-enlist]"28 / 05 | May / 2010
Of course in the cases noted, the countries involved are ones where homosexuals enjoy special political or legal protections, as compared to the vastly polarised United States, and what seemed to be cited as working was a more general ban on relationships in the military, and troops it seems were still too scared to "come out" the Palm Center, once again cited as pushing for the reform, claims. If there is real tolerance in the military structures of these countries, and homosexuals are not intimidated into silence, why would they not "come out", many of the inside concerns related more to unit cohesion in combat than to people resigning. The concern is over lives possibly lost, due to the position homosexuals in a military face. I might note, South Africa is not, and since Apartheid, has not been an ally of America, South Africa is a member of the non-aligned movement and is much more closely linked to China and Cuba, than it is to America. In fact, it is one of the few countries which periodically stands up to America, and 4 of 5 South Africans oppose all homosexual acts, meaning that even if gays were to serve in an organization as dangerous as the underpaid under resourced SANDF, they would be very unlikely to "come out", for fear of reprisals. Once again a fact checking error. Though yes, homosexuals, and HIV/AIDS sufferers are both allowed in the SANDF.
As the US's Catholic Bishop of the Armed Forces opposes the repeal of the ban, our service has determined to research into this issue. I personally am unsure of my own position on this issue, as is our service. However, what I personally do best, and what our service is known for is our fact checking ability, and I thought it important to note this bias, the quoting of a particular source as though a differing opinion, as yet not noting that it is in fact an activist organization, this is done both by Reuters, and by the Christian Science monitor, which take the views of the Palm center as though they were fact on face value. The British Army also has a policy of not shooting to kill where possible, simply because an organization says it has been successful with a strategy does not mean it has been. The questions the US military are asking are exactly the applicable ones. The note of "would you shower with a Catholic" equates sexual preference to religion. Interestingly the biggest opponents to homosexuals openly in the US military are in the Catholic church and hierarchy.
As I noted before, our service has no viewpoint on this matter. We do however affirm the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the norms of marriage set out in Canon law vis-a-vis the theological delict of the recognition of homosexual unions, and the theological delict of homosexual acts, and of endorsing these. I do however think it highly possible, that those who choose to discriminate against homosexuals on duty whether for fear of harassment by them, or due to a general dislike or other reasons, may well choose other methods of discouraging their service in the US military, or of practising their dislike, due to the very different nature of American society. If this law is repealed, it is also almost certain to be used to further the means of Islamist organizations which already have had great success in recruiting militia in their war against America and other western powers, notably due to the sexual mistreatment of prisoners. As this is happening, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which I noted oppose the lifting of the law prior Don't Ask Don't Tell's policy, has banned all people who currently experience strong homosexual urges, from US seminaries, in accordance with Vatican norms on the matter. I think the reason Republicans and the US Catholic hierarchy so opposes the lifting of the ban, lies in the polarisation of America, a tug of war which is beyond reason, whether or not it would be reasonable in the specific US situation for homosexuals to serve in the military.
This move, as with the Obama administration's choice to change "Freedom of Religion" for less tolerant "Freedom of Worship", since an unstable man of what in America is the minority Islamic faith, shot up Fort Hood, as with many other moves the US has made while ignoring conscientious objectors and religious voices in recent times: will certainly be noted by America's enemies, allies and neutrals throughout the world. If bible verses on rifles and bullets were feared to cost American lives, then there may be a very real concern that these moves may even further fuel the fire of America's enemies.
It is however vital that the US military does not ask its questions vaguely. It also is a matter of concern that Reuters did not note exactly who they were quoting. Further, religion is very different than sexual preference, and even more different than acts of a sexual nature. While I strongly oppose America's wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, if it were my country, I would be asking about the mortality statistics and injury statistics in countries which lifted their bans, especially among those suspected by other soldiers of homosexuality, as well as whether Islamist extremists gained more recruits. The first right of any human being gay or straight is the right to life.
South African Catholic News Service: Twitter|Facebook|Facebook Discuss|CAF|YouTube|UStream News|UStream Editorial
As an internationally collaborative: initiative to provide a more transparent, accurate view of the world: This service is brought to you by the Scripturelink Search Engine (quotations, or confers in this service/initiative, are provided to give perspective independently, or reference some external sources: and do not imply collaboration, or any kind of affiliation, or co-operation with other services, or initiatives, which are quoted or noted in articles)
Check the accuracy, and perspectives of our contents via the above listed search engine: against other "Catholic" services
Subscribe to our articles via email: Subscribe to South African Catholic Add your email to our system to: subscribe to: "South African Catholic News Service"'s dispatches: via email
View Archives
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Saturday, July 10, 2010
No comments:
Labels:
America,
American Democrats,
Conflict watch,
Islamic conflicts,
Reuters,
SACNS,
Social Justice South Africa,
True Marriage
with reference to the place:
Afghanistan
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Republicans filibuster premature Democrat attempt to discuss financial reform in USA Senate
(Catholic Watchdog South Africa; c.f. Fox News Radio (Conservative; Secular; American; Independent, but some link it to Republican beliefs) 26 / 04 | April / 2010 (The 5 minute news summary has since been updated); Radio Vaticana (Catholic; Hierarchical with relative independence; Vatican based) 27 / 04 | April / 2010 )
|Download/Stream the Audio of this Article|
|External Note: Republicans fear more bailouts, of the scope of those of Obama and of Bush.|
Article by Marc Aupiais
Title / Heading: Republicans filibuster premature Democrat attempt to discuss financial reform in USA Senate
Financial reform is thought to be Barack Obama’s Democrats’ number one priority, as the approval ratings of the US president have dipped to and even below the psychological 50% mark. Unemployment is just below 10%, and with passing of controversial healthcare legislation without any Republican support, despite mass public concerns, and without much of the vital explanations media believed were due to the public, Obama and his Democrats have much to worry about at the November polls, especially with recent iconic Republican wins in by-elections. One of the Republican wins has insured that unilateral financial reform has been filibustered in Yesterday’s procedural Senate vote. The reform is hoped by some Democrats to be a platform to garner support for Democrats via a focus on helping small rural business, and other reforms which could win Democrats votes in November. Republicans have also noted support for reform, but with some slight alterations to the bill, which they see as necessary.
The Democrats, Yesterday, had 57 votes on their side for the financial reform, while 41 Republican side nay votes opposed a proposal in the American Upper House of Parliament, to open debate on the matter; this was enough in the procedural vote to prevent thus far, financial reform, under the current Democrat proposal.
The Republicans are also concerned to insure financial reform goes through, especially as around two thirds of Americans reportedly are in favour of reforming the financial sector, after the recent aftermath of the hot-point of the financial crisis, and given the bail-outs during the Republican Bush, and Democrat Obama Administrations: of firms which otherwise, in ordinary capitalism, would have failed.
Their concerns relate to small but vital segments of the bill. They believe that the federal government could be over-reaching, and would prefer certain details of what they see as a complex issue to be ironed out more carefully. Despite this, their negotiators have reported to media that they are close to a solution. Fox news, a popular news service in America, accused by some of a sympathy towards the Republican cause has said that it is unlikely the Republicans will delay for much longer, due to a desire to garner the support of public opinion ahead of November elections.
Republican efforts at stricter financial regulations, pushed by Republican John McCain and others: during the 1990’s were blocked by Democrats, and it would seem unlikely for the bill to pass without Republican support, since Kennedy was replaced with Brown: as a representative in the Senate from Massachusetts, once a Democrat stronghold.
While both sides have claimed that they are close to a negotiated solution, the Democrats attempted, Yesterday: to push the bill forward for discussion prior Republican satisfaction, in a move similar to the unilateral overhaul of healthcare pushed through by the Democrats, and in the unilateral manner Barack Obama has pushed through legislation in: for much of his presidency. This despite promises of discussion and at attempting bi-partisan efforts during campaigning against his then Republican rival John McCain. Barack Obama has speeches set up in multiple areas (ending in a spot in Illinois), in order to garner more public support for the overhaul.
The question is whether Republicans will gain their concessions on details they believe should change, before the bill is either voted through or before the though highly unlikely, possible shelving of the legislation. The Democrat position seems to be aiming for a Democrat bill to pass, with as few of the Republic concessions within it as possible. Republicans could make an embarrassment for Obama before November polls, but have much to risk given high public support for financial reform, but also given the cost to public confidence, if they pass an inadequate bill, or are seen as a non-issue, or as betraying their ideals as regards Wall Street and other issues of importance to conservative voters: in the Senate.
South African Catholic News Service: Twitter|Facebook|Facebook Discuss|CAF|YouTube|UStream News|UStream Editorial
As an internationally collaborative: initiative to provide a more transparent, accurate view of the world: This service is brought to you by the Scripturelink Search Engine (quotations, or confers in this service/initiative, are provided to give perspective independently, or reference some external sources: and do not imply collaboration, or any kind of affiliation, or co-operation with other services, or initiatives, which are quoted or noted in articles)
Check the accuracy, and perspectives of our contents via the above listed search engine: against other "Catholic" services Subscribe to our articles via email: Subscribe to South African Catholic Add your email to our system to: subscribe to: "South African Catholic News Service"'s dispatches: via email View Archives
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
No comments:
Labels:
American Democrats,
American Republicans,
Catholic Services,
Financial Issues,
Obama,
Politics,
SACNS
with reference to the place:
White House, Washington, DC, USA
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Monday, 22 March 2010
House of Representatives passes taxpayer funded abortion in America- media sources
(Social Justice South Africa)
Article by Marc Aupiais
With no Republican votes for the massive, controversial, and more recently unpopular healthcare reform pushed through the lower house of the American Congress, the Democrats, given their massive majority since the election of Barak Hussein Obama, were easily able to pass the legislation, with the support of anti-abortion Catholic Democrats, such as Bart Stupak, who had previously claimed that the bill would send federal taxpayer dollars to abortion funding. Bart Stupak, folded in his opposition, following a promise that Barak Hussein Obama, would issue a reversable Executive Order, preventing taxpayer funding of abortion. The Executive Order is likely to be overturned by US courts.
According to the Associated Press, Stupak's attempt to justify his move, was shouted down on the Republican side, with the phrase "Baby Killer". Stupak, has vastly benefited in the past from the influence of the US Catholic bishops, who have often backed his legislative efforts, even during the previous Republican administration. A YouTube video is beginning to appear on conservative websites, of Bart Stupak allegedly claiming at a Town Hall meeting that he would vote for a healthcare bill, supporting wider abortion coverage, as social conservatives begin to respond to the Stupak turnaround. We cannot confirm the veracity of the video.
In 2007, Independent Newspapers (IOL) reported on taxpayer funded abortion in South Africa, then long since passed, whereby 50% of all pregnancies end in abortion in the Republic of South Africa, where abortion laws, while themselves quite liberal, are vastly more restrictive than in the USA as regards time, and where the group reported on long lines at abortion departments of public hospitals, and the fact that many were unable to access the controversial procedure, statistically seen as wrong among the majority of South Africans. The 9th March 2007 article by Sheena Adams was titled "'Half of SA pregnancies end in abortion'", appearing on page 3 of the Johannesburg Star, according to the grouping's (IOL) website.
Multi-billion-dollar abortion firm, Planned Parenthood, while furious at the Executive Order, which due to precident: is unlikely to withstand America's courts, has welcomed the American: Stupak compromise, noting that they are pleased that the Executive Order does not, in their belief, include what they saw as the previous Stupak abortion funding ban. The Stupak amendment, which has been portrayed wrongly as an abortion funding ban, did not in fact ban taxpayer funding of abortion, only did it limit it to the current principle relating of taxpayer funding of abortion in the United States, known as the Hyde Amendment. Under the amendment funding for abortion federally would have still have been increased, but to a lesser extent, covering abortions for rape victims, incest etc.
The pro-life coalition which had allied behind Stupak, have now largely disowned him, notably the influential Susan B. Anthony List. The SBA president: President Marjorie Dannenfelser, who along with other sources has claimed that legal precident would likely see the Executive Order done away with, spoke to media of their disappointment, and planned reaction. The SBA has cancelled plans to honour Stupak. The pro-life SBA, is known for its effectiveness in campaigning for candidates it endorses, and for its campaigns against them if they break their promises on abortion. (Catholic News Agency (Catholic; independent; American- but their parent company is Spanish: ACI Prensa) 21 / 03 | March / 2010)
Bart Stupak, in accepting the compromise, has seemingly parted with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which claimed that the Senate version would fund abortions, and urged Catholics to vote against the bill. In a move linked to the White House, the Catholic Health Association (CHA) and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), via their platform Network, endorsed the Senate version of the healthcare overhaul. CHA had spent a fortune campaigning for the passage of the bill. On the 30th of July, 2009, our own service reported on the then already functioning alliance between the US president, and the CHA, who were already campaigning for this healthcare reform: USA: Catholic Charities USA (Caritas Internationalis), Society of Saint Vincent De Paul, Catholic Health Association: support Universal Abortion plan in America?
We had reported on the odd correlation, that a board member of the Catholic Health Association, following their organizational support of Barak Obama, was then nominated to the position of Surgeon General of The United States of America, by Barak Obama, a position the CHA board member continues to hold:
"Dr. Benjamin is a member of the National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Family Physicians. She was a Kellogg National Fellow and a Rockefeller Next Generation Leader. Some of her numerous board memberships include the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Catholic Health Association, and Morehouse School of Medicine."(US Department of Health and Human Services | Office of the Surgeon General, undated, quoted on 22nd March by our service )
Catholic Health Association, does not answer to the Vatican or independently to any one of the US bishops, but rather to its own board.
The Leadership Conference, recently was investigated by the Vatican, because of concerns that it was no longer loyal to the papacy and dogmas of the church. The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, another grouping of nuns, representing about 10 000 (ten thousand members), and about 100 religious communities, opposed the current legislation, attacking Network as betraying Catholic beliefs, and supporting the US Catholic bishops. The leadership Conference figures, on how many nuns they represent have also been disputed by the Catholic Bishops in the US, as we do not have an accurate number to go on, we have not mentioned a figure. The healthcare overhaul was also supported by Obama allies Catholics United, whom Michigan Catholic Conference, the Catholic Bishops in that area, have slated as deceiving the American public, according to respected political commentator Thomas Peters, writing for American Papist, which is now part of Catholic Vote Action, a political watchdog of a conservative ethos: 19th March 2010.
Without Catholic support, the controversial health overhaul legislation would not have passed. Not only are many of the senior positions in the Democratic party, held by pro-abortion Catholics, but the votes of the Stupak block were vital to Obama in passing the bill. Catholics were also the swing vote which got Barak Hussein Obama elected as President of the United States of America. While historically the organizational hierarchy of the Democrats has alleged that the Republican party is too closely connected with religion, at least with the campaigning strategies of Barak Obama, allies in groupings claiming to be Catholic, and in America's many so-called Catholic universities, have been a vital part of the Democrat strategy.
It is likely that the current push, once signed into law, by Barak Obama, will have the same effect as taxpayer funded abortion has had elsewhere, a shift in societal views on abortion, something which may have influenced the Democrats to take the massive risk of forcing the overhaul.
When the passage of this health overhaul became less likely late last year, the South African African National Congress (ANC), stopped focussing on their own National Health Insurance plan, which:
"According to Alex van den Heever, a health economist, who was quoted by HASA (The Health Association of South Africa), having spoken at their Durban Conference: the NHI is a ""completely unworkable, unaffordable solution that won't improve health services despite massive increases in expenditure""(News 24 (Secular; Independent; South African) article by SAPA [South African Press Association] (Secular; Independent; South African) 08 / 06 | June / 2009). According to van den Heever: part of the proposal is to increase the Health budget by 100 Billion Rand, an astronomical and unrealistic figure, especially during a recession, and as the ANC has put forward other plans slated as unrealistic by financial experts."
(Archives 03 / 08 | August / 2009
If the choice was because on the American situation, it may result in the NHI option being considered once again in South Africa. The Public Health sector in South Africa, once seen as world class, has largely collapsed under mismanagement under the ANC governments.
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Monday, March 22, 2010
No comments:
Labels:
America,
American Democrats,
Catholic Health Association,
Health Issues,
Pro-life,
SACNS,
Social Justice South Africa
with reference to the place:
House of Representatives, Providence, RI 02901, USA
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
US Bishops' Conference Media Team calls up Obama, over what they see as his stance on health insurance and abortion
(Social Justice South Africa)
[English; Afrikaans; français]
Article by Marc Aupiais
As the Stupak Amended US healthcare package goes to America's highest house of parliament, the US Bishops' Conference is fighting to keep the gains they have made, via an amended package, which allegedly does not increase or decrease abortion funding, while allegedly still allowing state funding of abortion in the case of incest, rape, or "danger" to a child's mother, and allowing for some cases of possible euthanasia. The Stupak amendment: pushed by about 40 "pro-life" Democrats: with the USCCB's support, they claim, keeps the status quo. The article then challenges pro-abortion, Democratic Party, US President Obama, over his stance on the package:
Updated addition:
The following will be a direct quotation of part of an article by the media blog of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):
[English; Afrikaans; français]
Article by Marc Aupiais
As the Stupak Amended US healthcare package goes to America's highest house of parliament, the US Bishops' Conference is fighting to keep the gains they have made, via an amended package, which allegedly does not increase or decrease abortion funding, while allegedly still allowing state funding of abortion in the case of incest, rape, or "danger" to a child's mother, and allowing for some cases of possible euthanasia. The Stupak amendment: pushed by about 40 "pro-life" Democrats: with the USCCB's support, they claim, keeps the status quo. The article then challenges pro-abortion, Democratic Party, US President Obama, over his stance on the package:
Updated addition:
The American Life League, Creative Minority Report, and others, claim that while de jure, the principle may not have changed, de facto, Stupak will still allow for an increase in abortion funding.
The following will be a direct quotation of part of an article by the media blog of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):
"In the midst of this hysteria, National Public Radio (NPR) has done a fair job of breaking down the language of the Stupak Amendment. The quote from Rep. Stupak in the story underscores an essential point about the Stupak Amendment, that it's merely an application of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion and has been attached to appropriations bills since 1976. One question the NPR summary doesn't answer is whether or not the Hyde Amendment also forbids funding entire benefits packages that include abortion. The answer is yes.
In this case, the provisions of the Stupak Amendment are very much in continuity with federal law as it stands now and has stood for decades. It isn't some case of overreaching on the part of pro-lifers, as its opponents are now depicting it.
One voice that has joined the fray of speaking against the Stupak Amendment in the House bill is President Obama himself. The President, as is his style, took a cooler approach, as quoted here from the Washington Post:
"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill," Obama said. "And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change." He added: "There are strong feelings on both sides, and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."
ABC News also quotes the President as saying he's confident the final legislation will ensure that "neither side feels that it's being betrayed."
It's striking that this language is President Obama's argument against the Stupak Amendment. He reiterates here what you could call his pledge from his September 9 address to Congress on health care, that federal funds would not go to abortions, a pledge that the U.S. bishops held Congress to over the course of the health care bill's passage.
A major portion of the struggle over the legislation was that the Capps Amendment, the earlier abortion amendment in the House bill, was essentially what President Obama describes above, a "way of sneaking in funding for abortions." The Stupak Amendment rectifies this.
The President also cites his pledge that "if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change." As the NPR breakdown explains, the Stupak Amendment "does not apply to private insurance bought with private money." So anyone who currently has a private plan with abortion coverage is going to be able to keep her plan with abortion coverage under the House bill and Stupak.
It seems President Obama simply doesn't appreciate how well the Stupak Amendment meets the goals he's put in place for this legislation."
(USCCB (American; Belongs to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops; Catholic) 10 / 11 | November / 2009 )
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
No comments:
Labels:
America,
American Democrats,
Americas General News,
Americas news,
Americas Politics,
Health Issues,
Obama,
Pro-life,
SACNS,
Social Justice South Africa
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Obama continues health assault- calls insurance companies liars, lobbyists profit seekers
(Scripturelink Voter's Guide; c.f. White House (US Presidency; American; Governmental) 17 / 10 | October / 2009 )
[English; Afrikaans; français]
Editorial Article by Marc Aupiais
In a press release from the White House Press Secretary, dated 17 October 2009, Barack Obama once again has attacked the opponents to his health reform plan.
Many of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) member Bishops, have raised serious concerns over the health reform's seeming funding for universal abortion. Alarms at special interests allegedly held by those fronting the bill, were also raised: by the refusal of Obama's party to place any provision or amendment in the bill to remove universal coverage of abortion.
Others, opposed to the passing of this bill have raised concerns over care for the elderly, as well as over the inefficiency of similar systems to the proposed US one, which have been implemented in Canada, and in Great Britain. The press release also does not attempt to counter any claims of big government, or socialisism, thrown against this bill, by opposition members and nay sayers. Rather, the free press, and the industry the bill will affect most are attacked directly by Obama, who claims that he is fighting "big business", a claim not redolent of most capitalist leaders.
The long speech makes no mention of abortion, no mention of Great Britain, no mention of Canada, and no mention of the very real concerns opponents of the plan have voiced. Instead, those opposing the plan are linked by a conspiracy Barack Obama creates, with Health Insurance companies, and studies done are dubbed as deceptive. Barack Obama is known for his association with major abortion firm: Planned parenthood, to whom he made promises during his election campaign, as recorded in the media, which are much more direct than those he made to voters.
Here is a short quote of a summary given by the White House Press Secretary, follow the link (the date is a link) below to see the whole speech:
Obama has also been accused of attempting to act unilaterally, and of strict control of party ranks, editorially, I think this could be the case:
To give a short section of his long speech, and to demonstrate his attack on media, and all opponents to his bill:
As one might have noted, the concerns of the opposition, are not really laid out, and one unnamed study is claimed to be fraudulent, without more information. Much of the opposition, is based on fears involving service, not simply costs, value, not simply price. It is usual for government to consult with industries when they are affected by a law, however, this US administration, has once again bypassed this practice. It is not a good sign either, when a government determines to attack the credibility of those reporting on it.
[English; Afrikaans; français]
Editorial Article by Marc Aupiais
In a press release from the White House Press Secretary, dated 17 October 2009, Barack Obama once again has attacked the opponents to his health reform plan.
Many of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' (USCCB) member Bishops, have raised serious concerns over the health reform's seeming funding for universal abortion. Alarms at special interests allegedly held by those fronting the bill, were also raised: by the refusal of Obama's party to place any provision or amendment in the bill to remove universal coverage of abortion.
Others, opposed to the passing of this bill have raised concerns over care for the elderly, as well as over the inefficiency of similar systems to the proposed US one, which have been implemented in Canada, and in Great Britain. The press release also does not attempt to counter any claims of big government, or socialisism, thrown against this bill, by opposition members and nay sayers. Rather, the free press, and the industry the bill will affect most are attacked directly by Obama, who claims that he is fighting "big business", a claim not redolent of most capitalist leaders.
The long speech makes no mention of abortion, no mention of Great Britain, no mention of Canada, and no mention of the very real concerns opponents of the plan have voiced. Instead, those opposing the plan are linked by a conspiracy Barack Obama creates, with Health Insurance companies, and studies done are dubbed as deceptive. Barack Obama is known for his association with major abortion firm: Planned parenthood, to whom he made promises during his election campaign, as recorded in the media, which are much more direct than those he made to voters.
Here is a short quote of a summary given by the White House Press Secretary, follow the link (the date is a link) below to see the whole speech:
"WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Calls Hails Progress on Health Insurance Reform Despite Defenders of the Status Quo
WASHINGTON – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama praised the progress that has been made on health insurance reform, and spoke out against those who defend the status quo in order to score political points and protect their profits. With reform the closest it has ever been to becoming law, the insurance companies are rolling out deceptive ads, paying for misleading studies, and flooding Capitol Hill with lobbyists. Now, Washington needs to serve the American people, not the special interests."
(White House (US Presidency; American; Governmental) 17 / 10 | October / 2009 )
Obama has also been accused of attempting to act unilaterally, and of strict control of party ranks, editorially, I think this could be the case:
To give a short section of his long speech, and to demonstrate his attack on media, and all opponents to his bill:
"Of course, like clockwork, we’ve seen folks on cable television who know better, waving these industry-funded studies in the air. We’ve seen industry insiders – and their apologists – citing these studies as proof of claims that just aren’t true. They’ll claim that premiums will go up under reform; but they know that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that reforms will lower premiums in a new insurance exchange while offering consumer protections that will limit out-of-pocket costs and prevent discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. They’ll claim that you’ll have to pay more out of pocket; but they know that this is based on a study that willfully ignores whole sections of the bill, including tax credits and cost savings that will greatly benefit middle class families. Even the authors of one of these studies have now admitted publicly that the insurance companies actually asked them to do an incomplete job.
It’s smoke and mirrors. It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, "Take one of these, and call us in a decade." Well, not this time. The fact is, the insurance industry is making this last-ditch effort to stop reform even as costs continue to rise and our health care dollars continue to be poured into their profits, bonuses, and administrative costs that do nothing to make us healthy – that often actually go toward figuring out how to avoid covering people. And they’re earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exception from our anti-trust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing.
Now, I welcome a good debate. I welcome the chance to defend our proposals and to test our ideas in the fires of this democracy. But what I will not abide are those who would bend the truth – or break it – to score political points and stop our progress as a country. And what we all must oppose are the same old cynical Washington games that have been played for decades even as our problems have grown and our challenges have mounted."
(White House (US Presidency; American; Governmental) 17 / 10 | October / 2009 )
As one might have noted, the concerns of the opposition, are not really laid out, and one unnamed study is claimed to be fraudulent, without more information. Much of the opposition, is based on fears involving service, not simply costs, value, not simply price. It is usual for government to consult with industries when they are affected by a law, however, this US administration, has once again bypassed this practice. It is not a good sign either, when a government determines to attack the credibility of those reporting on it.
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Saturday, October 17, 2009
No comments:
Labels:
American Democrats,
Americas General News,
Americas news,
Americas Politics,
Health Issues,
Obama,
Pro-life,
SACNS
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Racist Bishops? Want black pope, call anti-life Obama a sign from God- that there's a need for a black pope!
Editorial Note by Marc Aupiais (Editor)
A number of African Bishops, from the region around Kenya, where Obama's father lives, have taken to treating the pro-abortion Democrat as though a sign from God, that the Catholic Church needs to repent and become more like America, and not the opposite, as some may have thought.
While the credibility of quotes by the Associated Press (AP), on issues involving Roman Catholicism, and American politics, has reduced significantly of late, with Pope Benedict XVI himself being directly and openly misquoted in favour of US president Barack Obama, their latest few, possibly out of context quotes, in their words, would seem hard to fake:
The Archbishop, who we have confirmed is an archbishop, appears clearly to not only be judging purely on race, but to be insinuating a black superiority in future, by comparing races to the 12 brothers. The Cardinal, being a Cardinal is a possible candidate for a future pope, if they were to judge by the criteria of being black, rather than on merit, and orthodoxy- he would be even more likely to have a good chance. Obama's ancestors themselves were never slaves, his father is a citizen of Kenya, his mother a white American.
Another Bishop,archbishop Monsignor Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), has claimed:
To attribute the election of Barak Obama to the Holy Spirit, is to place the responsibility for millions of additional deaths via abortion, on the shoulders of the Holy Spirit, a very serious accusation. That another claims that "we" are always happy when our "brother" is "big", seems to say that a white US president is not a brother to the bishop. Bush himself, a white man- focussed on Africa extensively.
Obama himself, has been seemingly racist, during his term in office- instantly taking the side of a black professor, over a white policeman in one event, and showing other activities which do not lend towards the perception the one bishop has of a uniter of men.
Fortunately, there are many many more bishops in Africa, the views of a few men do not constitute the views of multiple Bishops conferences. All of those involved seem to be from the same region, if not the same conference. All are from nearby Kenya, Obama's Father's country.
Further, the AP quotes are out of context, we cannot tell what the questions were, that said- they certainly contain words which mean something in any context. It would seem these bishops are saying that the colour of a man's skin is more important than whether an unborn child lives or dies, and than whether a political party has purposely misrepresented Catholic doctrine, dogma and Canon law on Abortion or not.
Send us your views!
A number of African Bishops, from the region around Kenya, where Obama's father lives, have taken to treating the pro-abortion Democrat as though a sign from God, that the Catholic Church needs to repent and become more like America, and not the opposite, as some may have thought.
While the credibility of quotes by the Associated Press (AP), on issues involving Roman Catholicism, and American politics, has reduced significantly of late, with Pope Benedict XVI himself being directly and openly misquoted in favour of US president Barack Obama, their latest few, possibly out of context quotes, in their words, would seem hard to fake:
"Archbishop Gabriel Charles Palmer-Buckle of Accra, Ghana said on Wednesday that there was "a divine plan behind" Obama's election.
"It's like the biblical story repeating itself," he told journalists, citing the Old Testament figure Joseph who, after being sold into slavery in Egypt ends up becoming a top official.
"We believe God has his own plans. God directs history," he said of the US election. "We pray that it (Obama's presidency) brings blessings for Africa and the whole world."
[...]
"We [royal we, collaborators, Ghana's Bishops, the North/Central-African Bishops?] are definitely aware of it," Palmer-Buckle said[ referring to the concern of many of the US Catholic Bishops, over Obama's attempts to radically increase abortion funding, something the pope himself is concerned about- as seen in his recent greeting of the pro-abortion US ambassador to the Vatican.]. "But we feel it our duty to meet him and find out what are the things that unite us more than divide us."
Earlier this week, the Ghanian prelate leading the three-week meeting on the Church in Africa, Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson of Cape Coast, Ghana, cited Obama's election in saying he didn't see any reason why there couldn't now be a black pope."(AP [Associated Press] (Secular; Independent; American; Has had a tendency to misquote Catholic figures, including the pope: recently) 07 / 10 / 2009)
The Archbishop, who we have confirmed is an archbishop, appears clearly to not only be judging purely on race, but to be insinuating a black superiority in future, by comparing races to the 12 brothers. The Cardinal, being a Cardinal is a possible candidate for a future pope, if they were to judge by the criteria of being black, rather than on merit, and orthodoxy- he would be even more likely to have a good chance. Obama's ancestors themselves were never slaves, his father is a citizen of Kenya, his mother a white American.
Another Bishop,archbishop Monsignor Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), has claimed:
""If the election of a black as head of the USA was a divine sign and a sign from the Holy Spirit for the reconciliation of races and ethnic groups for peaceful relations ... this synod and the universal church would gain from not ignoring this primordial event of contemporary history which is far from being a banal game of political alliances," he said in his speech.
Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria gave more tangible reasons for praise in meeting with journalists.
"Obama has the authority to talk straight to our bad leaders and tell them they are messing up our countries," he said. Besides, he added, "In Africa we are always happy when our brother is big.""(AP [Associated Press] (Secular; Independent; American; Has had a tendency to misquote Catholic figures, including the pope: recently) 07 / 10 / 2009)
To attribute the election of Barak Obama to the Holy Spirit, is to place the responsibility for millions of additional deaths via abortion, on the shoulders of the Holy Spirit, a very serious accusation. That another claims that "we" are always happy when our "brother" is "big", seems to say that a white US president is not a brother to the bishop. Bush himself, a white man- focussed on Africa extensively.
Obama himself, has been seemingly racist, during his term in office- instantly taking the side of a black professor, over a white policeman in one event, and showing other activities which do not lend towards the perception the one bishop has of a uniter of men.
Fortunately, there are many many more bishops in Africa, the views of a few men do not constitute the views of multiple Bishops conferences. All of those involved seem to be from the same region, if not the same conference. All are from nearby Kenya, Obama's Father's country.
Further, the AP quotes are out of context, we cannot tell what the questions were, that said- they certainly contain words which mean something in any context. It would seem these bishops are saying that the colour of a man's skin is more important than whether an unborn child lives or dies, and than whether a political party has purposely misrepresented Catholic doctrine, dogma and Canon law on Abortion or not.
Send us your views!
(SAST/CAT: GMT+2), this article was posted by:
Marc Evan Aupiais
On
Saturday, October 10, 2009
No comments:
Labels:
American Democrats,
Pro-life,
SACNS
with reference to the place:
Africa
Dad; Husband; Christian (Catholic); Irish. — News; Business; History; Civilizations; The Western World; Speech; Culture; Law. (Pronounced: Aw-Pea-Air.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts - This Week
-
( See What We See news Archive ; c.f. Pope Benedict XVI, letter/speech on Vatican site (Catholic; Hierarchical; Vatican based) 17 / 02 (Feb...
-
(SACNS) + Google Two things Google Plus should add! Facebook has a option which lets you post, so anyone can read, who subscribes to you...
-
A federal grand jury in Tampa, Florida, recently returned a superseding indictment charging four US citizens and three Russian nationals wit...
-
( Tridentine South Africa ) Article by Marc Aupiais Catholics in South Africa are obligated to attend church on Sundays throughout the year...
-
If you really believe people are causing climate change and that it is world ending, then the only thing to do is to aggressively promote nu...
-
IBM fired 8,000 people in order to replace them with AI. IBM then hired a whole lot of people because the efficiencies AI brought about mea...
-
For French and Latin, I command ChatGPT-4 to give me both the IPA and translation of each word. This works to some degree with Latin and fo...
-
South Africa's Stage 8. If South Africa has hit stage 8 load shedding in 2023, what does that imply? ChatGPT: Load shedding is a contro...
-
The very centre of our religion is why God punished the innocent, Jesus, for the guilty, us. God in the Old Testament would periodically pu...
Popular Posts This Month
-
( Tridentine South Africa ) Article by Marc Aupiais Catholics in South Africa are obligated to attend church on Sundays throughout the year...
-
South Africa's Stage 8. If South Africa has hit stage 8 load shedding in 2023, what does that imply? ChatGPT: Load shedding is a contro...
-
I think you will find there is disagreement about whether any part of the bible actually is ahistorical, compared with any other historical ...
-
( See What We See news Archive ; c.f. Pope Benedict XVI, letter/speech on Vatican site (Catholic; Hierarchical; Vatican based) 17 / 02 (Feb...
-
IBM fired 8,000 people in order to replace them with AI. IBM then hired a whole lot of people because the efficiencies AI brought about mea...
-
People are increasingly using their OpenClaws to phone people, for all kinds of purposes. Sometimes it’s something simple, like booking a re...
-
A federal grand jury in Tampa, Florida, recently returned a superseding indictment charging four US citizens and three Russian nationals wit...
-
https://youtu.be/Fk0AnVCpY3g From Evergrande, to the ill maintained and now unprofitable high speed train network, to rising authoritarianis...
-
(SACNS) + Google Two things Google Plus should add! Facebook has a option which lets you post, so anyone can read, who subscribes to you...
Popular Posts | All TIme
-
( See What We See news Archive ; c.f. Pope Benedict XVI, letter/speech on Vatican site (Catholic; Hierarchical; Vatican based) 17 / 02 (Feb...
-
(SACNS) + Google Two things Google Plus should add! Facebook has a option which lets you post, so anyone can read, who subscribes to you...
-
Good news about the police and army Image of policeman and of amphibious transport: Microsoft Clip Art. Quick note by Marc Aupiais...
-
( Media Study South Africa ) Article by Marc Aupiais After much public anger was raised, when Multi-choice decided to do a survey on wh...
-
( See What We See News and Archive ; c.f. UK Telegraph (United Kingdom / British, Independent; Secular) 26 / 08 | August / 2009 ; ABC News ...
-
I think you will find there is disagreement about whether any part of the bible actually is ahistorical, compared with any other historical ...