R.A.G.E. Media

News from the Abortion Capital of America. On the very first day they city council is trying to shut down pro-life initiatives such as EMC Frontline (Frun by Chris Slattery)

September 25, 2008

“40 Days for Life” Campaign Attacked on Day 1 by NYC City Council President
and Leading Abortion Advocates with Sweeping New Restrictive “Clinic Access” Bill

http://council.nyc.gov/html/releases/health_clinic_bill.shtml

“A vicious assault on the freedoms of speech, and assembly were launched against the peaceful and prayerful New York City pro-life community yesterday with the announcement of a new “Clinics Access Bill” (see press release above) on the first day of the nationwide 40 Days for Life campaign,” charged Chris Slattery, founder and president of Expectant Mother Care-EMC FrontLine Pregnancy Centers, with ten alternative-to-abortion centers in New York City.

The 40 Days for Life campaign, which Slattery is co-ordinating in New York City, is part of a 177 city, 45 state prayerful mobilization ongoing for 40 days from September 24th to November 2nd with volunteer led vigils at abortion sites across America.

Slattery, and a team of over 15 volunteer attorneys, led a successful effort to squash subpoenas and an investigation into New York City and geographically spread out New York State crisis pregnancy centers, by then Governor Eliot Spitzer, in early 2002. Spitzer lifted his investigation of close to 24 pro-life pregnancy help centers in late February, of that year, including Slattery’s then five New York centers.

“The NYC Council President, Christine Quinn, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the NY Civil Liberties Union have designed a bogus law to empower NYC abortion facility staff to actually become rouge, vigilante prosecutors and persecutors of local pro-life life-saving, and life-changing sidewalk counselors,” Slattery charged.

“These mostly volunteer street counselors, working with and for local pregnancy centers who compete with abortion mills, often hurt abortion businesses by successfully and peacefully dissuading abortion patients from entering their sites when offered free help, education, medical care, and housing, ” Slattery said.

Slattery added that “Not only would this bill provide shocking new powers to harass pro-life activists with bogus charges, Christine Quinn and company want to employ unconstitutional draconian fifteen feet “no-speech” barrier or “bubble zones” in clear violation of the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances)Statute, which protects pregnancy centers from being prohibited potential client access to their staff.”

He further stated “This unAmerican bill will inhibit and chill all the free speech necessary to inform abortion clinic patients of their right to know the alternatives to abortion, not currently required by New York City or State law.”

“Within minutes of learning of this new proposed bill on Wednesday I contacted David Bereit, national director of 40 Days for Life, and we have begun assembling a crack legal team and activist support network for a full scale counter-attack against this unfair, biased and blatantly unconstitutional bill,” said Slattery.

He concluded that with “with God’s help we will defeat this bogus bill, and bring out many women who have had their lives changed and babies saved by pro-life sidewalk outreach at abortion clinics.”

There is an alarming number of Catholic and pro-life leaders and influencers who are propagating a dangerous, even evil idea. This idea is that in 2008, we do not have a suitable candidate for truly pro-life voters to choose in November.

Not voting, or voting write-in candidates, is the popular suggestion.

When I was in attendance at the Men and Abortion conference in Chicago a few weeks ago, Jason Jones addressed the audience, and said “When you live in a constitutional democracy, your civic duty becomes your religious duty. We are the sovereigns.” In other words, these influential pro-life and Catholic individuals are asking us to abdicate the throne.

First, though, it should be pointed out that the most convincing argument against voting for John McCain was his acceptance of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. That has now been answered by his announcement that he will maintain the policy of George W. Bush and the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin, who is more courageously pro-life than I would have ever hoped to see in this election on a major ticket. Third, by the very fact these two preceding events have taken place, it confirms that John McCain is a candidate in which pro-life dialog can take place and have an effect. Therefore, this argument that he is not ‘pro-life’ enough seems to no longer hold water.

But even if these events had not taken place, if we were faced with the two parties putting forth such terrible options - would it be justified to cast a vote for a third-party candidate, especially one who has not gotten on the ballot in all 50 states?

The cause for abortion is one of the ultimate issues of good versus evil in our time. For many of us, it may be the greatest of our lives. Therefore it is our duty to take part in the battle.

Those who would have you believe there is no choice but a third-party candidate have cited that one cannot take part in evil. That is true. But we live in a time so compromised our choices have been severely limited. The blood of two generations is literally running in our sewers. The tyranny of the two party system has given us no perfect solution. However, there is a great difference between those candidates put forth by the parties.

The faults of John McCain have been mentioned, and of course one can add concern over his party’s integral part in the war in the middle east. But on the other hand… in Barak Hussein Obama… we have perhaps the personification of a candidate on the anti-Catholic, pro-abortion platform.

Obama not only supports abortion, but he has not opposed the rights of a child who survives an abortion - Obama supports a mother’s right to even kill her already-born children. As a Democrat, it is practically assured that he will revoke the Mexico City Policy, which will allow our tax dollars to fund abortions in foreign countries. There is indeed a great many more lives that will be lost if Obama is elected than if McCain is elected. Of course, if you have even read this article to this point, we are probably in agreement that under no circumstances do we want Obama to be elected.

If we cannot choose either candidate because we should not participate in evil, then we have no choice? That is what a fool will tell you. If you do nothing, or you piddle your precious vote away on a third-party candidate who has no chance, than you may very well commit a graver sin of omission, if your action or inaction brings about the greatest evil. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Let’s say that someone tells you they are about to kill one man, or three. It is your choice. But if you do not choose, they will kill the three, You have in fact three choices. If you refuse to choose, the third option, you would be responsible for the death of two more people than if you had chosen the lesser evil.

The third parties might still seem to be an option. However, never in our history has a candidate from a third party won, and for good reason. Jerry Freisa explains:

On four occasions in US history, the candidate with the most popular votes did not win the presidency. This is a feature of a republican form of government, a government that is intended to “check” popular participation and “leveling” or democratic impulses. The mechanism by which this is done is the Electoral College. The Electoral College also insures that the number of parties seriously competing for the presidency will always be and only be two.

Each State’s allotment of electors is equal to the number of House members to which it is entitled plus two Senators (with the District of Columbia getting three). But here is the key element for our purposes: in order to win the presidency, a candidate must win a majority of electors.

By requiring that a candidate win a majority, the Electoral College guarantees that third parties must do one of three things. Let’s assume a third party arises and is incredibly strong (the Perot candidacy that for a time was pushing 20 percent nationally), but has no realistic chance of wining a majority of electors straight out. Its first choice is to press forward, win a significant percentage of electors and deny either of the two major parties a majority victory. In this case, the election would be decided by the House of Representatives, already dominated by the major parties. Option 1: third party looses everything.

The second option, again assuming a strong third party, is to coalesce with one of the major parties in order to get something. Arguably the most powerful progressive political party was the People’s Party during the late 19th century. In 1896, they had anywhere from 25 to 45 percent strength in twenty-odd states. Clearly unable to win the presidency as a third party, they felt compelled to coalesce with the Democrats and saw their more radical labor and socialist elements purged in a losing effort. Well, there you are. Option 2 puts you back inside one of the major parties.

The third option arises when a third party is not that strong, say a Nadar candidacy of 2000. We know what happens there. A weak third party, by taking votes away from the party closest to it ideologically will, in effect, help elect the major party most unlike themselves. Option 3: help the other guys win.

The third option is perhaps the most likely for any “more pro-life than McCain” party, and in effect it hands Obama the presidency. In other words, if the sun rises on November 5, 2008 and Obama is elected, the blood will be on the hands not only of those who voted for him or did not vote, but for those who voted for someone other than McCain.

All three of these scenarios depict a strong third party, which is not a factor in the 2008 election. Even if they were, they would pretty much have to be polling more than at least one party to be a contender, and even then the odds are decidedly stacked against them. If you need a review of how the electoral college works, Wikipedia is actually decent for this.

The Catholic Voter’s Guide put out by Catholic Answers addresses this as well:

Where an ideal candidate, law, or prgram is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entailes the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance.

Is not voting, or voting for a third party candidate, who with less than 60 days to election day has not got a prayer, the best choice to limiting evil? No, for grave evil will befall us and our children if Obama is elected.

Disclaimer: I am an independent voter, with no particular affection for the Republican party. Like Sen. Clinton, whose support of Obama is more or less due to the fact that he is not McCain, my support for McCain is because he is not Obama, and the electoral college has left us with only 2 choices.

Also, I am free to specifically name candidates in posts such as these since R.A.G.E. Media is a Corporation and not a non-profit. We do not have the muzzle that non-profits are burdened with but at the same time we must “render unto Ceasar.” So if you would like us to keep saying what we must, please take a look at our products and consider purchasing an item or two.

Disturbing email I just received from a colleague:

It appears that Prolife pharmacist and PFLI spokesman Mike Koelzer has crossed paths with the very liberal
Associate Professor of Biology, P.Z. Myers. Apparently Mike’s big offense was to show (by offering to make a presentation at Myer’s place of worship) that he didn’t (according to Myers) “know me very well“.
For this grave insult of not recognizing the renown of Myers, small hordes of Myers’ Atheist Acolytes were sent to Mike’s pharmacy survey page to heap spam onto the website of his business. This caused Mike a bit of tedium, from a need to manage the spam, and caused me considerable amusement to hear of it.

Myers, a rather bellicose fellow, apparently in midlife crisis, is known more for obtaining a Blessed Eucharistic Host from a Catholic Church, and desecrating it, than he is for accomplishments in scientific research. A brief search for his work in Biology turned up……. well, ….. next to nothing. I understand that he has one or two peer reviewed journal articles, and a little collection of conference presentations to his name. If you search the net, you’ll find Associate Professor Myers now bending the ears of students at University of Minnesota, Morris Campus.

It appears that when this P.Z. Myers passes on to become fertilizer (as his own religion might suggest) he won’t be remembered for actual accomplishments, and may be recalled by a few for attempting to anger Catholics and other people with a vision of the Creator.

I do sincerely invite P.Z. Myers to get a life, to obtain access to the Creator through the illumination of the Catholic Religion, and perhaps accomplish some significant scientific research.

Science becomes a very useful tool, for the good of living creatures, when one stops abusing it as a religion.

Karen L. Brauer MS, RPh, President, Pharmacists for Life

Mike Koelzer is just down the road from me, and we had a chance to meet last month. He’s a wonderful guy who lives his Catholic faith.

The following is the responses to some interview questions from [tag]Vasu Murti[/tag], author of The [tag]Liberal Case Against Abortion[/tag].

While Vasu and I disagree on most things, we both are in agreement in our opposition to [tag]abortion[/tag]. I find his perspective an important resource for reaching out to liberals who believe that supporting the abortion industry is an integral part of their philosophy. Vasu constantly testifies to the opposite - there is nothing more consistent with [tag]the Leftist[/tag] philosophy than the opposition of abortion.

Vasu’s book can be ordered at http://liberalandprolife.com/ or from Amazon.com.

Read the rest of this entry »

This video was shot at the [tag]March for Life[/tag] 2008 in front of the [tag]Supreme Court[/tag].

[tag]Alveda King[/tag] is the niece of [tag]Martin Luther King, Jr.[/tag], and has been an outspoken advocate for the [tag]civil rights[/tag] of women and the unborn. Her testimony tells of the two [tag]abortions[/tag] she had and how they affected her life.

I neglected to add that podcasters are welcome to request books as well!

Here are the first blogs and sites that have requested [tag]free books[/tag], which are on their way. Look to them in the near future to see their reviews!

In no particular order:

Recapturing our Catholic Patrimony
SSA Catholic

Into the Deep
The Pro-Life Psychologist
Island Views
Chaotic Christians
Everton Community Church

An unforseen bonus is finding a lot of great blogs and sites through this program. Thanks all!

Thanks to all who participated! This promotion has ended.

If you have any questions, please email Paul at sales@dyinglight.com

I admit, this reaction comes late, as this article appeared in the January/February 2007 issue of Touchstone Magazine. It’s not available in their online archives, however. Still, better late than never.

[tag]Anne Barbeau Gardiner[/tag] wrote a review of [tag]Vasu Murti[/tag]’s The Liberal Case Against Abortion, published by R.A.G.E. Media, for [tag]Touchstone Magazine[/tag] earlier this year, titled “Brahmin Bull.” While I am grateful for Gardiner and Touchstone Magazine giving us a one-and-a-half page review, I am appalled that such a review appeared in a periodical claiming to be [tag]pro-life[/tag] and [tag]Christian[/tag].

Gardiner takes one paragraph to give Murti’s background, a descendant of South Indian [tag]Brahmin[/tag]s, member of the ACLU, Feminists for Life, Amnesty International, and PETA, who has written a “rational, secular” case against abortion. The rest of the review could be described as an anti-vegetarian, anti-liberal rant.

Don’t get me wrong here - I’m biased as I published the [tag]book[/tag]. But I also don’t agree with Murti on many issues. We do share a pro-life (or [tag]anti-abortion[/tag], if you prefer the term) perspective, but disagree on several other topics. We have different fundamental religious beliefs, that’s a given. But we cooperated to put a one-of-a-kind book from a textbook left-wing liberal Democrat denouncing abortion.

But Gardiner cannot seem to get past the fact that Murti doesn’t ascribe to Christian theology or [tag]conservative values[/tag]. She completely misses the fact that Murti did not waste time preaching to the choir - that is, conservative Christians who are already pro-life - and instead wrote a book for people that DO NOT have conservative Christian values to back the pro-life movement.

Gardiner writes:

“Similarly, he [Murti] argues that recognizing the rights of unborn children just like ‘the rights of blacks, women, lesbians and gays, children, animals, and the environment’ would be a sign of ’secular social progress.’ Here he puts the right to life of unborn children, foundational to every other right, on par with civil rights and the imaginary right of a farm animal not to be killed for food.”

Just because Murti listed the right to life of the unborn among a host of other left-of-center values doesn’t mean he equated them - he is writing to convince those who already hold and accept those values as true that the right to life for the unborn ought to be embraced by the left as much as those other civil liberties issues are already.

Gardiner goes on:

“To make the defense of the unborn dependent upon [tag]vegetarian[/tag]ism and the belief that animals possess similar rights does not help the unborn.”

Wow. Again, Murti is trying to convince vegetarians to be pro-life, and Gardiner says that the unborn children don’t need that. If I were unable to speak in my own defense, with my life on the line, I’d welcome any help I could get. What the unborn don’t need are self-righteous Christians disqualifying non-Christian, liberal pro-life advocates on the basis of their other beliefs.

Gardiner further exemplifies this principle by ridiculing Murti for his criticism of the current pro-life movement as being too “religious.” Granted, I shouldn’t expect better from the periodical that criticized Guerrilla Apologetics for Life Issues for making a similar recommendation. Sorry, Touchstone - if you’re trying to save another person’s life, you have a better chance of saving them by reasoning with their attacker not to kill them, then trying to “save” the attacker, or convert him to Christianity first.

Furthermore, propagation of the idea that opposition to abortion is a “[tag]religious issue[/tag]” (typified by religious pro-lifers people telling non-religious pro-lifer’s to shut up) paves the way for politicians to say they oppose abortion, but don’t want to “impose their religious beliefs” on others. Christian pro-life magazines and writers that think their theology has a monopoly on the movement make that kind of reasoning possible. If more liberals and [tag]Democrats[/tag] and “non-traditional” pro-lifers could stand up without being knocked down by the likes of Gardiner, it’d be harder for Kerry, Obama, and Giuliani to make such ridiculous statements.

Anyway, at the end the article gets very ugly, dare I even say sloppy.

Gardiner writes:

In making his argument, Murti exalts beasts above their place in creation. It is a flight of fantasy to say that animals have beliefs, desires, and a consciousness of themselves. Christians call the exaltation of the beast idolatry [sic], since faith teaches us that only humans are created in the image of God, have been redeemed, and are promised eternal life.

I’m not sure what sect that calls itself Christian that Gardiner considers herself, but every definition of idolatry I have seen definies the term as worship of idols, creatures and the like - not simply the equating of animals with humans. In other words, idolatry is the equating of what is not God with God. (I seriously wondered for a while if Touchstone and Gardiner might be part of some sect that worships mankind, as then equating beasts with humans would be idolatry, but then, of course, so would the sect’s worship of humanity.)

But such a crass display of ignorance to Christian theology and English vocabulary is topped shortly thereafter:

“In the introduction to this little book, Carol Crossed, president of Democrats for Life, endorses Murti’s ‘universal argumentation’ and opposes those whose ‘divisive faith beliefs’ promote the ‘inequality’ of animals and unborn children. So there you have it: Idolatry brought to you by Democrats for Life.”

As if it wasn’t bad enough when Democrats for Life gets shunned by their own political party, but it is absolutely disgraceful that someone, in the name of Christianity, would denounce a pro-life organization simply because of its liberal political affiliation. It is just plain embarrassing that they would go out on a limb to accuse the organization of promoting idolatry, especially when the accuser seems to not understand the meaning of the word.

Well, at least we can be grateful that not everyone subscribes to Touchstone and Gardiner’s “Christian Bull” - or their magazine.

But to end on a positive note, here is a list of [tag]Liberal[/tag] organizations who have received complimentary copies of The Liberal Case Against Abortion, since the book was written for them, after all:

Sexual Freedom Coalition
Sierra Club Catholics for a Free Choice
Code Pink
United for Peace & Justice
Progressive Democrats of America
Freedom From Religion Foundation
American Friends Service Committee
The Green Party of the U.S.
National Organization for Women (NOW)
Center for Constitutional Rights
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Gold Star Families for Peace
Bread for the World
Children’s Defense Fund
Texans for Peace
Alameda Democratic Club
Public Citizen (Ralph Nader’s group)
American Federation of Teachers
Million Mom March
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
American Association of University Women
College Democrats of America
NARAL/Pro-Choice America
National Council of Jewish Women
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Feminist Majority
Young Democrats of America
Progressive Policy Institute
Center for American Progress
Center for Science in the Public Interest
United Farm Workers
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
Population Connection
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Campaign for Peace and Democracy
Greenbelt Alliance
International Women’s Health Coalition
Democratic Governors Association
Holistic Mom’s Network
Peace Action
Jews for Racial & Economic Justice
The American Prospect
Progressive Christian Witness
Bob Linden of Go Vegan Radio
Planned Parenthood
California Wellness Foundation
Center for Biological Diversity
….and others, including many pro-abortion Democrats in political office.

Mt. Laurel, NJ, MAY 9, 2007 - Does your business or organization have a message to spread, a product to sell, funds to raise, and a limited budget? If so, you may be one of many pro-life or Catholic organizations that can benefit from a well-written and distributed [tag]press release[/tag].

“The press release is a very powerful and low-cost [tag]promotional[/tag] tool,” says Paul Nowak, of R.A.G.E. Media. “However, it is often overlooked by faith- or issue-based organizations, or worse, done improperly casting a negative image of the organization to the [tag]media[/tag].”

Nowak explained that unlike traditional advertising, press releases, which get published by the media as news stories, are less expensive, more authoritative, and last longer than traditional [tag]advertising[/tag].

“If you’re getting fed up with spending hundreds or thousands of dollars in advertising and not getting your desired results, you may want to consider using press releases instead,” said Nowak. “Press releases are not read as advertising – many of the stories in your local or national news are releases ‘touched-up’ by reporters, but written by groups or individuals seeking publicity. Those stories carry the authority of the media outlet publishing them, giving the originator of the release credibility, without their message sounding like an advertisement.”

For a reporter to use a press release, however, a particular news style is expected. If a story is too difficult to re-work, it might get passed over. Even worse, the poorly-written release may be considered by reporters to be an indication that the group is poorly organized, not well-informed, and lacking expertise regarding the message they are trying to convey.

“Mainstream corporations and major pro-abortion organizations have robust public relations departments that pounce on any opportunity to promote their products and mission,” said Nowak. “It’s about time Catholic and pro-life businesses, organizations, apostolates, and non-profits of every size had the same tools and resources available to them.”

That’s why Nowak, a veteran writer for LifeNews.com and Franciscan University’s media relations department, is offering his freelance services to pro-life and Catholic groups. As a journalist and press release writer , Nowak’s articles have been published and reprinted worldwide, in both the mainstream and [tag]Catholic[/tag] press.

“If you are launching a new ministry, a new product, reached a milestone, or want to comment publicly on a current news story that relates to your organization, shout about it from the housetops!” encourages Nowak. “Also consider press releases to compliment your traditional advertising efforts, in order to boost your results.”

More information on R.A.G.E. Media’s services can be found at http://www.dyinglight.com/index.php/catholic-prolife-press-release-services/.

If you can use a professionally-written and distributed press release to help your organization or business reach its goals, contact Paul Nowak at 856-577-2869, or by email at wordsmith@dyinglight.com.

R.A.G.E. Media offers professional writing and publishing services. “R.A.G.E.” is an acronym for “Rebellious Affirmation of Greater Existence,” a reminder that we must consciously remember that there is a Greater Power active in today’s world, and that we as human beings serve a greater purpose than the world would have us believe.

It’s been about 2 years since I first wrote Guerrilla [tag]Apologetics[/tag] for Catholics, and now having cast myself into the adventure of [tag]self-employment[/tag] (update on that on Monday) I’ve put the electronic verisons ([tag]eBooks[/tag])of the [tag]Guerrilla Apologetics[/tag] books up for sale in the R.A.G.E. Media store for just $2 each.

Click here to go to the R.A.G.E. Media Store Homepage.