web analytics

GAY MARRIAGE MEANS DEATH?

By David Vance On April 4th, 2014 at 4:53 pm

Gay marriage may YET be the death of you. 

The Archbishop of Canterbury has warned that the Church of England accepting gay marriage could be “absolutely catastrophic” for Christians in countries where homosexuality is illegal. Speaking on his first live phone-in on LBC radio, the Most Rev Justin Welby said he recently visited the grave of 369 bodies in South Sudan where it was believed “if we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we will kill all the Christians”.

Asked by one caller about whether the Church of England would accept gay marriage after it was allowed in law, he said: “The impact of that on Christians in countries far from here, like South Sudan, like Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic and we have to love them as much as the people who are here. “I’ve stood by a graveside in Africa of a group of Christians who’d been attacked because of something that had happened far, far away in America. And they were attacked by other people because of that. “That burns itself into your soul, as does the suffering of gay people in this country,” he added.

Why that sounds as if some Africans are inherent homophobes? Why might that be, I wonder? How can we enlighten them and – whilst we go about that – how many Christians will die? I guess if it means that pro gay liberals FEEL good, then that is ok?

SHADOW BOXING…

By David Vance On April 4th, 2014 at 4:44 pm

It’s all rather pathetic.  Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson, that ENTHUSIAST for devolution, now says …erm..he wants to see power returned to Westminster!

Devolved powers for social welfare could be handed back to Westminster if there is no agreement over welfare reform, Peter Robinson has suggested. Legislation to change benefits has been brought in for England, Scotland and Wales, but Sinn Féin are currently refusing to back a similar bill in Northern Ireland.

Oh Peter, you are so brave. But, hang on a minute…

Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness has said Peter Robinson “has crossed the line” by saying they had reached agreement on welfare reform His comments came after the first minister claimed, in an interview, they had discussed a package to help  However, he said Mr McGuinness had been unable to sell it to senior Sinn Féin members of the Irish parliament. Mr McGuinness said Mr Robinson’s version of events was not true. “I think he crossed the line and I think it was a big mistake for him to cross that line,” he said. “Quite clearly some of the things that he said in relation to the discussions that took place between himself and myself and other negotiators on our side and his side on the issue of welfare cuts bear no reality to what happened at the time. “I take umbrage at that.”

So, Marty takes “umbrage” does he? And Peter pirouettes on the head of a pin. Isn’t devolution just wonderful? I take umbrage at a terrorist godfather being seated in Government.

 

TICK TOCK…

By David Vance On April 4th, 2014 at 4:38 pm

I did laugh at this…

Irish police believe a bomber allegedly blew himself up after he forgot about the clocks changing while he was planting a bomb.  Police are looking to speak with a man who is suspected of planting the bomb in Dublin on Sunday and was left severely injured when the device detonated prematurely. The device had been attached to a Volvo SUV. The man was seen fleeing the scene in Dublin with blood on his face before climbing into a taxi

Taking stupid to a new level?

46 years ago

By The Troll On April 4th, 2014 at 3:17 pm

Today is the anniversary of the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. It is one of the memories of my youth that stays with me. I remember watching two news events on the TV one was mans first step on the moon, the other was the coverage of this mans death.

I remember my father explaining to me this event. I didn’t understand why someone would kill somebody that just wanted to be treated the same as everyone else. It was not what I was being taught. I was taught that you judge somebody by their actions, how they behave. Not how they look, and not always by what they say. The value of a person is judged by how they treat others and how they handle confrontation.

King from the view that I was taught was doing everything right, and someone killed him.  That is when I learned that there is evil in the world.  What happened to King was evil.  It was explained to me that there are evil people that will do evil things to others that they disagree with.  That people like that are small in number, but have always been amongst us.

It is the reason that my Father, Grandfather, and Uncles put on uniforms and guns everyday when they left the house. It was to protect normal people from those evil men.  It is the duty of those that can to protect those that can’t.  That was how the world was explained to me.

Here is an interview you might enjoy, it’s 25 minutes long but it is worth your time.

YouTube Preview Image

Abortion……….a descriptive term for a group of politicians!

By Mike Cunningham On April 4th, 2014 at 2:44 pm

 

Letter to my MP…………………

I write as a very concerned Constituency resident to oppose, point blank, the liberalisation of the Abortion Law of this Country without those same liberal interpretations of that Law being exposed and tested within both Houses of Parliament; and wish to ascertain if you, as my M.P., support my opposition and hopefully raise your concerns in Parliament?

When the Abortion Act was first made law in 1967, there were guides covering both the judgement under which abortions could be allowed, and the rules which allowed those same abortions to be carried out. Under the Act an abortion could only be performed by a ‘registered medical practitioner’ (ie. a doctor) and only when two registered medical practitioners were of the opinion, ‘formed in good faith’, that certain conditions applied.

About 97% of all abortions are currently performed on grounds ‘that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family’. The two certifying doctors are required to carry out this balancing of medical risk and it is implicit in the legislation that they would meet with the woman to make an assessment about whether these medical conditions applied. How otherwise could they carry out their statutory duties ‘in good faith’?

The Labour Government clarified these procedures in 1999, when they stated ‘Under the Abortion Act 1967, pregnancies are terminated to protect health. Other than in an emergency to save a woman’s life, medical practitioners must give their opinions on the reasons under the Act for the termination following consultation with the woman.’

In other words, two individual doctors must confer with the woman seeking the ending of her pregnancy. At no time since has any Health Secretary approached Parliament to ask, require debate or even approve alteration to this requirement.

I now learn that Shadow Health Minister Andrew Lansley, speaking on the 12th May 2008, wished to remove the need for the two doctors rule when he said “ I therefore hope that the House will consider whether the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion being performed, and the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions, need to be maintained” but this departure from the strict interpretation of the law was never debated or repeated. However, four years later as a member of the Co-alition Cabinet, he secretly issued new ‘interim arrangements’ to independent abortion providers which dispensed with the two doctor’ requirement. Under Lansley’s new arrangements, it was no longer necessary for two doctors to see and examine the woman. One apparently would do (that being the natural reading of ‘not both’). The re-issued Code of Practice states ‘We consider it good practice that one of the two certifying doctors has seen the woman, though this is not a legal requirement’; and further states ‘Members of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) can play a role in seeking information from the woman.’ So, one interpretation of the new Guidance would be that neither doctor need to have spoken to the prospective abortee, and information may even be accepted from a nurse, as member of the Team!

The Department of Health is just about to issue the new advice to both NHS and Independent abortion providers, and Parliament has never been asked if they like what they see laid before them!

I ask if you, as my MP, can sit easily while a Cabinet Minister rewrites the Law, without those same re-written passages being subject to scrutiny on such a delicate and contentious issue?

Regards,

 

h/t to christian medical comment

 

Friday

By The Troll On April 4th, 2014 at 12:58 pm

It’s been a hectic week, good and bad. Yesterday was my sweet wife’s birthday. God blessed my life when he put her in it. The week has also had it’s downside, both my cars are in the shop. One broke down and the other the key broke in the ignition.  Such are the little nuances of life.

I pick the following song today because it is an example of the beautiful sound that sometime can be achieved by the two cultures that this site encompasses. Although such music doesn’t always come from our union the potential is there.

YouTube Preview Image

The American Flag is not a Prop for Anyone

By Phantom On April 4th, 2014 at 12:53 pm

YouTube Preview Image

The other day in New Mexico, there were protests against multiple incidents of brutality, some fatal, by a poorly disciplined Albuquerque police force.

Two bums held the American flag upside down as they rode around in a scooter.

A US Marine and a soldier didn’t care too much to see the flag disrespected in the name of politics. Proper citizen’s action was taken.

The American flag is not a prop. It is a unifying symbol. It is never be disrespected by whoring it to make any political point by anyone.

Semper fi, boys.

IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PAGING DR MENEGELE?

By Pete Moore On April 4th, 2014 at 10:45 am

But without government, who will force children to breathe carcinogenic diesel pollutants?

The U.S. government intentionally subjected children and adults to bizarre medical experiments that required them to inhale diesel pollutants known to contain cancer-causing chemicals. The experiments involved collecting diesel fumes from idling diesel trucks, then piping those fumes into enclosed chambers where U.S. test subjects were required to breathe them for hours at a time.

Their tax dollars at work, for at least a decade. This only came to light because a dogged whistleblower forced the release of what the EPA was trying to cover up. More than that, it seems that government employees, academic institutions and medical school authorities have tried to bury the story also.

I wonder who the children were and are. Wards of court? The offspring of welfare recipients? I doubt they were the children of EPA or other government officials.

 

GIVE THIS WOMAN A WIDE BERTH

By Pete Moore On April 3rd, 2014 at 7:22 pm

Maria Miller is a crook and a liar. Despite profiting hugely from her deception, she’s been ordered to repay just £5000 of the money she dishonestly received and benefitted from. She has also been ordered to apologise for her slippery ways when investigated. She’s also a Cabinet Minister, which is why she is effectively getting away with her crime.

Maria Miller 3333333

I agree with Cristina Odone therefore. If Miller had been a poor benefits cheat, (maybe stressed out and desperate for ways to pay the telly tax), she’d be in the dock and possibly going to prison. The State takes a very dim view of those who are caught with their fingers in the State biscuit tin, except when you’re a politician. They’re different, you see. They get to write the rules which exempt themselves from the stern punishments inflicted on everyone else. We’ll note in passing that The Telegraph was “menaced” by the government and told to pull the story of Miller’s crime.

Well done to the Tory-voting drones of Basingstoke. You picked a real winner there. I’m sure you’ll do so again and again.

FORT HOOD SHOOTER WAS ON ANTI-DEPRESSANTS

By Pete Moore On April 3rd, 2014 at 3:46 pm

Surprise!

We’ve seen it all before, too many times before. At a press conference last night, Lt. Gen. Mark A. Milley confirmed that Ivan Lopez, who killed three before shooting himself, was on SSRIs and anti-depressants. All that’s different now is that usually we have to wait weeks before this kind of confirmation is slipped out quietly, long after the press pack has forgotten about a shooting.

YouTube Preview Image

It’s interesting that the BBC’s report leads on a probe of Lopez’s mental health, and carries footage of the same press conference, but the Milley’s admission that Lopez was on the kind of drugs that so many other such killers have been prescribed was edited out.