Sunday, January 27, 2008

Kathleen Willey Says Hillary “is a Serial Liar”

Interview with Kathleen Willey about her new book as well as Hillary and Bill Clinton

By Fred Martinez

Question: There is overwhelming evidence that you and others bring out about the sexual abuse and sexual misuse of yourself, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Dolly Kaye Browning, Elizabeth Gracen, Monica Lewisnsky and others. Why are some liberal bloggers still claiming Bill Clinton is not a sexual predator?

Willey: Because it suits their agenda. Because of Clinton's stance on abortion, feminists have decided to make the best of it, meaning that Clinton's predatory behavior toward individual women just doesn't matter because other issues override it. Patricia Ireland, the former president of NOW, was quoted as saying, “ All of us knew he was a snake when we voted for him. Betty Friedan, considered the founder of modern feminism, said at some point, Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her I sincerely doubt that, but I sure don't doubt that Friedan said it.

Q: As for Clinton’s sexual assault on you, the same liberal bloggers bring up Independent Counsel Robert Ray and Julie Steele who claim that you aren’t credible. Why are the claims of Steele and Ray about you not credible?

Willey: Well, if I'm credible, then Clinton isn't. And if Bill Clinton's not credible on this point, then about what other things might he be lying? So these attacks are pretty self-explanatory. Bill Clinton, liberal icon, must be protected at all costs.

Q: In your book “Target” you said “I believe Clinton would have raped me that day, just as, I believe, he raped Juanita Broadrick.” Do you believe that Clinton didn’t just sexually assault you, but committed attempted rape?

Willey: There are many areas in which I don't agree with feminists of the Betty Friedan ilk, but I do agree that women have the right NOT to be harassed and handled if they choose not to be. And Bill Clinton did more than that to me. Whether he completed the act he originally had in mind isn't the primary thing. Violation takes many forms, and he committed that crime against me.

Q: In “Target” you said Hillary “was cursing an aide with a very foul mouth. Then she would see somebody who mattered and instantly pour it on, all sweetness.” According to psychologist Martha Stout sociopaths “show sham emotions, but underneath they are indifferent to others’ suffering. They live to dominate.” Do you think Hillary and Bill are sociopaths?

Willey: Well, I'm not a psychologist. A lot of descriptions have been bandied about regarding the Clintons' state of mind and endless sense of entitlement -- and the fact that they will stop at nothing to get what they want. To me, what's more important than how you describe these two, is how you describe the mess they helped to make of this country. I think about that every day. Why millions of voters have such short memories is a real mystery.

Q: You wrote this book “only to tell what I know about Hillary.” What the three things that you wish every voter had in their mind about Mrs. Clinton before they vote?

-That she is a serial liar and will say and do anything to get her way.
-That she has never held a real job that had any real responsibility in terms of keeping employees paid or struggling to keep the doors of a business open, so whatever experience” she touts is basically meaningless with regards to the struggling middle class.
-That she is likely to nominate a lawyer who has had his license suspended - Bill Clinton - to the Supreme Court, not to mention other judges of that liberal ilk, and that's something this country can ill afford.

Q: You quote Dick Morris saying “If you’re going to be a sexual predator, be pro-choice” reference to Bill Clinton. Why is abortion more important to feminists than protecting women from sexual predators?

Willey: Frankly, your guess on this one is as good as mine. I have always been confounded by the fact that prominent feminist groups do nothing to help women in Islamic countries who are being put to death for riding in a car with a guy who isn't a relative, for example, but then go out of their way to protest the war on terror that has had the effect of giving women more rights in Iraq and Afghanistan than they had previously. If that's not liberal hypocrisy on display, it's hard to tell what is.

Q: Boxer Mike Tyson went to prison for rape. Do you think Clinton should have gone to prison for any or all of the following crimes?
-Raping Juanita Broadrick
-Sexually assaulting you and other women
-Witness intimidation
-Obstruction of justice
-His guilty verdict of the federal misdemeanor of releasing your private letters

Willey: If it were up to me, he would have. People have been jailed in this country for doing a hell of a lot less.

Q: Ex-Clinton friend Dick Morris called Hillary’s army of private investigators Clinton’s Secret Police. Your book says that you and others believe that Hillary’s goons did the following:
-Intimidated witnesses
-“[W]oman after woman has been demonized by their [the Clinton’s] secret police” according to Dick Morris
-Threatened your children
-Threatened your friend’s children
-Took one of your cats and killed another
-Left an animal skull on your porch
-Said you were in danger
-Followed you
-Put numerous nails in your car wheels
-Hid under your deck in the middle of the night
-Did a Watergate-like break-in into your house in 2007 and took a manuscript of your book “Target”

If Hillary is elected President, do you think she is capable of even doing worst things?

Willey: Absolutely. There will be no stopping her then. The people who work at World Ahead, the company that published "Target," joke that they will have to move to an oil rig in the North Sea, or to Mars, because they have put out several books highly critical of Hillary. But it's not really a joke. She is capable of anything, and the power of the presidency will give her everything she needs to destroy her enemies and reward her friends - who are no friends of this country.

Q: David Schipper, chief investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, recalled a priest came to see him after the impeachment who said he was an exorcist.

The priest said to him “There are satanic influences in the White House, and they all want you out of here.”

“Yes, Bill Clinton is a bad guy,” Schipper acknowledged.

“No, not him,” the priest said. “Her.”

Schipper in your book said he thinks Hillary “is evil.” What do you think?

Willey: I can't disagree with that analysis. If I could exorcise the Clintons from my life, I'd be happy to do so

Q: I’ve written for Newsmax and The Conservative Monitor, but most of my work has been for Catholic publications. What do you think we should pray for when we pray for Bill and Hillary? What should we pray for in our next president?

Willey: Well, forgiveness is always a good thing to pray for. To pray that they change their ways and work to help, not harm this country would be another, although God's going to have a tough time with these two.

As for the next president, I pray that whoever it is realizes that the future of this great nation is in jeopardy from foolish policies and foolish expenditures that are wreaking havoc on our future and that of our kids -- and that he (at this point, I'd say it's a he) does something about it.

Willey: Thank you, Fred.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

How to teach Purity

How to teach Purity

Richard Salbato 9-24-2007

I was asked by many people to expand on my last Newsletter, Sins Against Purity Cause Wars. Father Bart believes we should start a movement within the Church on Purity and Dating. I love the idea, but personally I am a hermit and too involved with my own family to organize anything. I will, however, offer guidelines and suggestions for those teachers and priests who want to bring Purity and Virginity back to the Church. For over ten years now I have been writing Newsletters on Moral Theology because more people today go to Hell for sins against morals than any other reason. Some of those Newsletters are linked below.

I suppose the most controversial Newsletter I have ever written on Morals is one of the first I ever wrote. It was a result of people asking me why I did not get involved in the Right to Life Marches and Sit-ins that my friends were involved in. Quickly without even thinking I said, “Abortion is not the problem.” At the time I did not even know what I meant by that but I went home and wrote out the answer. That was 10 years ago. Today I tried to find it on my web site, but it disappeared so I re-posted it. Abortion is not the Problem

I’ll try to not repeat anything here that I have already written in the above document but these two Newsletters should be read together. In the Newsletter, Abortion is not the Problem, I make the point that dating is the mother of sins against the flesh in our times. I saw this in confession when I said that I promise to “avoid the mere occasion of sin”. I remembered the movie about Vincent Van Gogh when his friend said, “You paint to fast.” He snapped back: “You look to fast.”

Like most people when I saw that Padre Pio had separate confessions for men and women, even separate rooms, I though he was just a little too old fashioned. When I read that boys and girls never went to the same schools, I thought they were just old fashioned. When I learned about “going out parties”, I just thought they were old fashioned. When I learned about “finishing schools”, I just thought they were old fashioned. I watched old black and white movies from the 50s and 60s and saw that even when in love people never even touched, but thought how old fashioned that was. Perhaps I thought: “Maybe I am looking to fast.

Maybe people back then knew things we have forgotten. Maybe they were the smart ones and we are the stupid ones. Maybe I should investigate why they did what they did and why we do what we do. Maybe we are accepting as moral what is the root of immorality.

Lets look at the problem today of sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, the rise of divorces, the rise of people living together without marriage, the rise of pedophilia, the rise of abortions, and the lack of morals throughout society. Why has sex replaced love? Why is there a rise in frigidity among men and women?

Teaching Sexual Relationships

I teach my grandchildren, 13 years of age to 19 years of age, weekly religion classes. For adults I have structured classes but for teens I just answer questions. In this age bracket they want to know about relationships more than anything else. They want to live in the world but by God’s rules. This is hard. To understand how hard, you have to know the peer pressure and the need to be accepted. I had to first teach them what is natural to our nature and why it is good. God created what is natural for good reasons, but He also gave us the moral law that we might regulate what is natural. When you teach about sex, you must not make it a bad thing, because it is a wonderful and holy thing that God created.

I use the example of soil and dirt. Both are the same thing, but soil is in place used for what God intended. Dirt is soil out of place and not used for what God (nature) intended.

God created man to be attracted to women, and he starts this attraction at a very young age, 8 to 10 years old. Man does not know why but he just likes women. Women start younger because they mature much faster. A woman is sexually mature about 10 years sooner than man is. She is also more sexually aggressive. You are going to disagree with me right now, but I will explain this later.

God designed this in man and women because He said be fruitful and multiply. Even in the animal world it is almost emotionally and physically forced on animals to have sex for the continuation of the species. In the animal world we call this being “in heat” but we fail to see it in humans. We also fail to see the family structure of animals, birds and fish, and we think of family as a man made thing rather than something natural to our nature. When ever we violate what is natural to our nature, we end with a disoriented nature, a sick nature.

God designed woman to mature physically and mentally faster than man, because the nature of man is not so social or loving, whereas woman is both social and loving at an early age. It takes longer for man to mature and to even be able to support a family and wife. Because of this difference I advise both men and women to keep this ten year difference in mind when looking for a wife or husband.

In the old days a woman’s “coming out party” was about when she was 16 years of age. This is when the family invited all the young men to their home (with their parents) to show off their daughter, who was now of age to look for a husband. For the first time in her life she would dance with boys, in front of her parents. Before going to this Coming Out Party, she would go to Finishing School. In this school she would not learn language or math, but how to walk, how to act, how to greet people of different classes, how to eat, and in short, how to be a lady. Men also went to Finishing School but they did not call it that. They learned manors, a trade and manliness, even sometimes how to fight. The boys were also taught dancing and proper dress for different occasions.

Today the average age for women starting their period, and therefore their sexual yearning, is about 12 to 13 instead of 16 years. I think it is because of TV and the promotion of sex in everything we do. The brain affects the body and this exposure to sex causes people to mature physically too soon. I say too soon because mentally they are not ready. The balance of mental and physical maturity is disrupted.

Now I am going to say something that will surprise most people unless you think about it a great deal without looking too fast. Men do not really want sex before they are at least 17 or 18. They do not even want to make out or get too involved with girls other than keeping them company. Boys really want romance but not sex.

The reason we think this is crazy is that boys seem so aggressive today, but this aggressiveness is caused by peer pressure. Boys are made to think they are not men unless they have sex and even press for it. In truth even when pressured by other boys and even the girls, they are hoping the girl says, “No!” Sometimes a girl will even drop a boy who does not want sex. This is true today and common but not true in the past. Because of peer pressure and a lying promotion of open sex on TV, most girls think they are not loved unless the boy at least tries to have sex with them.

This is a huge problem for boys between 12 and 17 years of age because although they are capable of sex they are not ready for it mentally or physically. They feel like they have to do it but often this will cause problems in them that may last the rest of their lives. This might become a hidden dislike for women, or at least disrespect. This mental and physical difference in age of men and women sometimes produces homosexuality in men because they are threatened by women but do not know why. Unlike what you read, homosexuality in American is only ½ of one percent of the people and not 10% but they do not want to admit that they are mentally sick caused from some sexual trauma. This mental sickness borders on the demonic because it so violates nature. It often leads to pedophilia, because sex for nothing but personal satisfaction and not out of love ends up by hating all that is pure. It is even a way of showing hatred for God. The pedophile hates God and everything pure.

Female homosexuals have a different cause. They are not born that way as our “tolerant” society wants you to believe. A woman’s sexuality is more mental than physical and the physical is mostly external and not internal. A man can somewhat enjoy sex even with someone he does not like. But a woman must be somewhat romanced and treated kindly before she really enjoys sex. When she continually has unfulfilled sexual experiences over and over she turns to the person who understands female sexuality, another woman.

“My children might “make out” a little bit but they do not have sex.” This is what some parents say to me but it is bull crap. I have an easier time explaining what is wrong with this to children than I do to adults. Think about the soil and the dirt. God designed the human body perfectly. It get hungry when it is time to eat but it can be trained to only be hungry once a day, like in my case.

God wants married people to have sex because it is good and even wonderful. But their first has to be some stimulation that makes sex possible. God designed the human body in such a way that tender touching and kissing stimulates the body so that it is capable of sex. In the man it even causes the sperm to be generated so that birth is possible. In the woman it lubricates so that sex is possible. This can start by just holding hands.

This is good and even wonderful when two people are married. It is even sacramental and one of the greatest expressions of love there is. However, what happens then when two people stimulate their bodies for sex but then do not have it. The stimulation calms down a little but does not go away. It builds up in the same way that smelling good food over and over and not eating it effects the body. The next day the sexual drive still lingers and might manifest itself in many ways. If this continues it could produce aggressive behavior or even ways to escape the feelings through alcohol or drugs.

This must to be explained so that “making out” is not thought about as innocent or sinless. It is very sinful and is at the root of all sexual sins. This is why un-chaperoned dating is so wrong and the root of sexual sins, the main road to Hell.

Men are voyeurs, meaning that they can be sexually stimulated by visual things. God created man this way for the same reason he created women so beautiful. As the bible says, even the angels are tempted by the beauty of women. Since sexual stimulation without sex causes all kinds of root problems that are all sinful and even mentally harmful, it behooves women to be very careful how they dress or act. This does not mean not to dress for beauty but just not to dress provocatively. It also means that good men should understand that any visual sexual stimulation on TV or the printed media should be avoided for good mental health and good morals. Personally I do not understand why people would even want to watch two people kiss. These things are personal and not any more public than going to the bathroom.

What then is purity? Purity is not sexless although many sacrifice all sex for the Kingdom of God. Married people who have very active sexual lives can be very pure and even saintly. Many married people with lots of children have been canonized as saints. Purity is not dressing in sackcloth. Purity is not avoiding the opposite sex. Purity starts and stops in the brain. Purity is a mental attitude more than a physical compliance. One can do all the right things according to God’s will and law but without being pure of heart, you cannot be called pure.

When you want to obey all the laws of nature and the laws of God because it is the best way to be charitable to yourself, to others and to God, then you can be called pure of heart. This is what it means to love God and others with your heart and soul. Prudish, Victorian people are not pure, they are selfish. The pure of heart wants to give all to God and others using the gifts God gave for good.

This is not the time to talk about this because I want parents and children to read this, but just before marriage men and women should be taught that it is God’s will and the law of love to make sure that your loved one enjoys sex. This might seem obvious but it is a big problem in marriages and does not have to be. I do not think this should be taught until just before marriage because it can lead to sinful thoughts and acts if done too soon.

You would be surprised to know that in some societies in the Middle East and Africa they castrate women because they do not believe women should enjoy six. This is also a sin against nature and God, because God designed sex as an expression of love, joy and pleasure. It is a lack of love when someone does not care if the other does not have this joy and pleasure. I will not talk more on this, but those who want information on this can email me.

Our Lady of America calls all Americans to purity. Our Lady of Nicaragua predicts World War III. The two apparitions go hand in hand, because there will be a World War III and if America changes her ways regarding sex and abortion, we can escape the brunt of this war and even lead the world back to peace. The main recruiting tool of Radical Moslems is the moral corruption of the west. Let us take that tool out of their hands, and put God on our side. Let us also take the tool of justice out of God’s hand by ending the root cause of abortion, dating and free sex.

Stop un-chaperoned dating.

Richard Salbato

Dear Friends and Benefactors

"The debasement of noblest things is the worst." This famous apothegm is no more applicable than to matters of purity and impurity.

One of the most wide spread vices of our day and age is that of impurity. It is a vice so easy to fall into yet once it takes hold seems impossible to overcome. Part of the reason for this is that, as St. John Climacus says:

Our relentless enemy, the teacher of fornication, whispers that God is lenient and particularly merciful to this passion, since it is so very natural. Yet if we watch the wiles of the demons we will observe that after we have actually sinned they will affirm that God is a just and inexorable judge. They say one thing to lead us into sin, another thing to overwhelm us in despair.

Another reason why many are not victorious in battling this vice is that they do not value the opposing virtue of purity. They fail to realize that as there is no vice more loathsome and horrible than impurity, so the most charming and beautiful of all virtues is purity. But why is this so?

In the first place, purity is so highly valued because it is the crown of all other virtues. It presupposes the presence of many if not all other virtues. The pure of heart love prayer and have the virtue of piety. They must at all times consider their infirmity and pray for grace and strength thus practicing humility. They also love the virtues of penance, self-denial and charity and they must have the virtues of meekness, patience and zeal for the glory of God. They must also practice the virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, in such a perfect manner that the other virtues find strength and support in them.

Another reason is that there is no virtue which demands greater sacrifice and more care than purity. St. Jerome calls this virtue a living martyrdom since it lasts for one’s entire life. We must guard not only one of our senses or faculties, but all of them. All of our senses and faculties are exposed to temptations against holy purity, and so we must keep them all under careful control. It is this constant watchfulness and self-denial which the Fathers of the Church regarded as a martyrdom.

Because of this self-denial, which purity demands, some may have the impression that the life of the pure is sad and gloomy; they are mistaken. The Garden of Paradise contained many trees but only one was forbidden to our first parents. The fruit they were allowed to eat was far more choice than that of the one forbidden to them. Because they chose to enjoy the forbidden fruit they were no longer able to enjoy the others. Likewise, the pure of heart know many more joys, pleasures and consolations that are withheld from those who give themselves up to impurity.

Purity is reflected in our bearing and character even though it be too subtle to analyze or explain. The pure young man or young woman will be of a happy mind having a cheerfulness that does not depend on the weather. Their eyes sparkle with a fire not of this world and they see beauty and charm where the sinful see only the commonplace. The mountains, trees and flowers, lawful gratification, labor and rest, all give to the pure a gratification of which the worldly minded have no idea. How much better it is to enjoy such peace and tranquility of mind, than to suffer the tortures of conscience living in fear that hidden sins will become known.

Nothing in all Creation is grander than the sight of a pure boy or girl growing up in all their strength and beauty of health, with an innocent look in their eyes. Purity ennobles and elevates our body, giving it a charm that is the delight of God and His angels. Even the wicked, who are unwilling to be pure themselves, are compelled to admire and respect purity in others.

Nor is it just the body of the pure that God in His infinite generosity adorns but He beautifies the soul far more. They that go to heaven upon the path of purity receive the choicest blessings and graces. Through these graces they receive warning beforehand of impending temptations and danger. Because of the greater and more pure love which purity gives they are able to undergo any sacrifice, even to suffer death, rather than forfeit the priceless jewel of purity.

Many saints were of the opinion that most people lose their salvation through impurity. If so, we may say that the virtue of purity is one of the safest marks of belonging to the elect. Our Savior has told us little about the joys and rewards of the world to come, but He did reveal that the pure will receive a special reward standing nearest to His Throne, where they will sing a song of praise that no one else will be able to sing.

Living in a world steeped in immodesty and impurity it may seem impossible to go unscathed. But we can preserve this precious jewel and pass through life unmarked if we rely on God’s grace and put forth the effort, following the example of the saints.

The saints were able to fight off temptation because they constantly lived in the presence of God. They had one thought uppermost in their minds —wherever they were, God was by their side. By constantly keeping God before their mind, they had the strength to suffer anything for love of Him and thus turned suffering into joy and trials into victories. When others were overwhelmed by even the smallest temptations because they had lost sight of God, the saints accepted and conquered even the fiercest assaults as a matter of course. The thought of God’s presence gave them strength, consolation, hope and happiness.

The saints were able to keep God before their minds because they lived in a spirit of prayer. They did not make the mistake of thinking prayer to be a merely formal affair; a few minutes set apart in a completely different atmosphere from the rest of their day. Rather they had the constant pious disposition to connect everything they did or saw with God. Every act became prayer for them. Every act of penance, self-denial and charity was nothing else than prayer. Their entire life was transformed into one constant prayer.

If sinners would go to Confession and Holy Communion as frequently and with the same zealous dispositions as the saints, they, too, would become saints. Generally speaking, however, those that need the Sacraments the most are the most negligent in receiving them.

Besides the presence of God, the saints also are shining examples of devotion to our Blessed Mother. True devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is taken as a guarantee of eternal happiness. She does not fail to obtain favors and blessings for those who honor her. Hence it should not surprise us that her special admirers receive special benefits; as shown in the lives of the saints. Thus Mary can and will obtain for the children that love her most one of the greatest favors, the jewel and crown of all virtues.

The virtue of purity is, therefore, worth our every effort and its beauty cannot be over-rated. It is something so refined and heavenly that our weak human vision can scarcely grasp the greatness of its grandeur. We shall only fully appreciate it in heaven. But until then we must fight for it, and keep its beauty, as far as we can, before us.

Sincerely yours in the Precious Blood of Jesus,

Fr. John D. Fullerton

Other Newsletters on the moral law:

Greatest Direction For Our Times At the Gates of Hell

Abortion is not the Problem

The Few Number Who Are Saved

Sins Against Purity Cause Wars

Etiquette - The Art of Love

Lord, I Did It My Way

The Art of Being Father or Mother

False Virtue

Woman, God's Last Creation

Justice is Love

Right Thinking Develops Right Conscience

What The World Needs Now

The Art Of Being Enchanting With Words

Are You Who You Want To Be?

Narcissists Do Not Love Themselves

How Was Killing Sold To American With Deliberate Lies

Abortion, Fast Cash Money and No Taxes

Stopping Abortions Worldwide and How

Condoning Sin by Your Vote

Do Not Treat Sex Commonly

How Many Catholics Are Saved?

Why Do So Many Catholics Go To Hell?

Homosexuals and Hope

Dating and Things - Dialogue of the Old and the Young

Marriage and Divorce - Dialogue of the Old and the Young

Earthly Friends - Possible? - Dialogue of the Old and the Young

Wealth and Possessions - Dialogue of the Old and the Young

Joy of the Holy Spirit - Dialogue of the Old and the Young


Where the Holy Spirit is - There is the Catholic Church

Raising Children in the Modern World

Exposing the Experts - The Real Pedophile Problem

The Sodimization of Innocence

The Church Promoting Homosexual Conduct

Is War with Iraq Moral?

Justified War

Saint Peter Damain on Homosexuals

The Sodimization of Innocence

The Church Promotes Homosexual Conduct

A Totalitarian Society "Requires Total State Control over its Citizens’ Lives"

"Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives."

Security and Liberty

by Ron Paul


The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn’t matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.

The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government-mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

Buy a copy of Ron Paul's
new book for $20.

April 25, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Oprah Glamorizing Homosexuality

Oprah Glamorizing Homosexuality

Family News in Focus


ABC Takes a Bow for Gay-Affirming Television Programming

NY Times, Oprah also honored for glamorizing homosexuality.

For the second straight year, ABC received the most nominations for gay-affirming TV programming. The network landed nine nominations from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), while CBS garnered three nods, NBC two and Fox two, The Associated Press reported.

ABC's nominated shows include Brothers & Sisters, Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives.

Oprah Winfrey and Tyra Banks dominated the Outstanding Talk Show Episode category. For Newspaper Overall Coverage, nominees were: The Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Seattle Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

"GLAAD's annual recognition of programs promoting homosexuality and transgenderism reflect the magnitude of the sea change in American attitudes about these issues," said Caleb H. Price, research analyst for Focus on the Family. "It's astonishing to think that GLAAD is able to put up nearly 200 nominees in 40 categories — even though homosexuals and transgenders comprise between 2 and 3 percent of the population.

"Yet even this won't be enough for the gay-activist community and its stated agenda to glamorize and normalize homosexuality."

Thursday, January 24, 2008

"Romney has Deceived Ann Coulter"

American RTL Rebukes Ann Coulter
Coulter Endorses Pro-Abortion Mitt Romney
MEDIA ADVISORY, Jan. 22 /Christian Newswire/ -- American RTL Action president Steve Curtis is challenging the wisdom and pro-life leadership of Ann Coulter for her endorsement of pro-abortion Mitt Romney for president. The group's site documents Romney's recent promotion of child killing with links to official government websites, Romney's own campaign, mainstream sources, and audio and video clips of the candidate himself:

Mitt Romney claims, "On every piece of legislation, I came down on the side of life." "That is a lie," said Curtis, former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. In April 2006 Romney signed the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Plan that pays for even elective abortions. Today he falsely claims a 1981 court ruling about "medically necessary" abortions forced him to provide tax-funded elective abortion, showing he prioritizes socialized "health care" over protecting kids, even when that "health care" actually intentionally kills children. Romney gave a permanent seat on the Massachusetts payment policy advisory board to the nation's leading abortionists at Planned Parenthood. Romney signed the 2005 bill that promotes chemical abortions with Plan B. As Governor he appointed openly pro-abortion Democrat Matt Nestor to a district court; and disputing a ruling from his own state health department Romney personally argued that pro-life hospitals must dispense abortifacients. Romney claims to have been personally pro-life for many years, but also claims a recent pro-life conversion on Nov. 9, 2004 while talking to Harvard researcher Douglas Melton about embryonic stem cells. However Mitt still openly supports killing the baby of a rapist, and killing the tiniest of humans for research. Dr. Melton has even disputed Romney's account of their conversation, and "pro-life" Romney even attended a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood. During the years that Romney says he was personally pro-life he aggressively claimed to be second-to-none in asserting abortion as an essential right. And in October 2005 Romney asked the federal government for a waiver for a major increase in funding for abortion "counseling" and for tax-funded abortifacients.

Coulter repeatedly suggests in a Jan. 16, 2008 column that pro-lifers should let liberals help them pick their nominee. "The candidate Republicans should be clamoring for is the one liberals are feverishly denouncing... Mitt Romney." Coulter mocked primary voters who "do absolutely zero research on the candidates" and then she concluded without presenting any legislative research but instead mouthing Mitt's own sound bite, that "Romney governed as a pro-lifer."

"She is good at debunking claims," said Curtis, "so she should go to our website and try to disprove our damning evidence that Romney is aggressively pro- abortion. Romney has deceived Ann Coulter and maintained his godless pro-abortion position."

"The evidence is indisputable-- Mitt Romney is lying to get Christian votes," said vice president of ARTL Action, Columbine dad Brian Rohrbough. "When 'pro- life' leaders lie, more innocent children will die, so Ann has either been tricked, or is helping him trick others. American RTL is calling Coulter to account." In the early primary contests the new 527 group American RTL Action ran anti-Mitt TV ads only in Iowa and South Carolina, the two states where Romney was trounced because his pro-abortion actions were exposed.

Corroborating links at

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Is the ACLU Crazy, Evil … or Both?

---- Original Message -----
From: Americans For Truth

Is the ACLU Crazy, Evil … or Both?

(Click HERE for larger picture) ACLU's homosexual Executive Director, Anthony Romero. Read the ACLU's outrageous, pro-bathroom-sex legal brief here:
Folks, could any of us on the Right make up something this nutty, this extreme? The ACLU is defending DEVIANT SEX IN PUBLIC BATHROOMS as a "privacy right." This was too much even for lefty MSNBC "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann, who makes a living slamming conservatives. Here's a paragraph from the ACLU's unbelievable Larry Craig brief (emphasis added):
Sex is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. ... Thus, the government may make sex a crime only where it has a constitutionally sufficient justification for doing so. ... [cites the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down Texas' sodomy law]. The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime. ... It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. ... This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom.
Activists courts are the tool that the Left has used to advance what pro-family attorney Jan LaRue calls America's "unholy trinity": abortion-on-demand, pornography, and homosexuality. If killing one's unborn child (with his or her own, separate DNA) can be justified as a "privacy" right; if owning or buying even child pornography can be defended as a First Amendment "right," then hey, why not homosexual perversion in bathroom stalls?
We know enough about the ACLU to assert that even if a homosexual activist (Anthony Romero, above) were not running the organization, it would have joined this case. "Sexual freedom" is the Libertine Left's new clarion call to legalize and expand the "rights" of even the most outlandish perversions: sadomasochistic house parties; the hetero "swingers community"; the "right" of sex businesses to set up shop in your neighborhood; "polyamory" (multiple-partner "marriage," anyone?); and, yes, even public bathroom sex.
Wackiness aside, if America's modern history has taught us anything, it is to take the Left's legal gambits and cultural aggression seriously. Using the courts, the ACLU lawyers and their comrades in the Homosexual, Radical Feminist (Abortion) and Porn Lobbies are destroying America, in the name of freedom.
Think about that later this year when you vote for our next U.S. President, who will pick the nation's our highest-level judges. God help us.
-- Peter LaBarbera,
P.S. Here's a great piece on the ACLU's folly by Brenda Zurita of CWA's ( Beverly LaHaye Institute:
Sex in Bathroom Stalls, Privacy Expectations and the ACLU
And the Punch Line Is …

Will the ACLU’s bathroom-sex agenda stall?

By Brenda Zurita

Reprinted with permission from CWA’s Beverly LaHaye Institute, Jan. 16, 2008

Due to the current Hollywood writer’s strike, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has jumped in to fill the gap existing in late-night monologues and sit-coms. If only that were true there might be a joke in there somewhere.

Alas, the title refers to a brief filed by the ACLU in the Larry Craig case in Minnesota. Yes, the senator of the “wide stance” fame has a new defense argument, courtesy of the ACLU.

The Associated Press reported that the ACLU is arguing there is an expectation of privacy when people have sex in public bathrooms.

Hmmm, when I enter a public bathroom I have the expectation of toilet paper being in the stall, not a sex encounter. And privacy in a public bathroom is at a minimum. The gap around the door frame and the open space between the dividers and the floor and ceiling provide only a modicum of coverage. Not exactly a rendezvous spot for randy patrons expecting privacy. It does however make an excellent place for exhibitionists to meet.

Imagine taking your child to a public restroom and hearing two people engaging in a sex act six inches away. Again, due to the construction of the average public restroom stall, there is little that is private. Having an expectation of privacy there is laughable. And what about the expectation of people using the restroom for what is was intended and not being subjected to sex acts?

But let’s just say the ACLU is correct and the expectation of privacy for having sex in a public bathroom is tenable. The next time a “wide stancer” needs to stretch his legs, should he do so in the Minnesota Supreme Court’s restrooms? Public school restroom stalls? Public library restroom stalls? Community center restroom stalls? Government building restroom stalls? (This is not to be confused with Congressional offices, the Oval Office or some of the national monuments in Washington, all of which may or may not have stories to tell from their public restroom perspective but do have a few vignettes about sexcapades outside their stall walls.)

If we throw morals, decency and common sense out the window with this argument of expectation of privacy in a public restroom while engaging in sex, what are the implications?

Given the law passed in Maryland allowing men to use women’s restrooms if they consider themselves a woman trapped in a man’s body and allowing women to use men’s restrooms if they consider themselves a man trapped in a woman’s body, what is to stop a rapist or pedophile from entering a restroom and abusing a boy or girl in a restroom stall? Would a man have to claim he is a woman in a man’s body to use the women’s room and if so, what is the proof he’s not just a wily rapist or pedophile? And who will be monitoring this? If there is an expectation of privacy then all users of public restrooms would have to assume the sex going on in the next stall is consensual and cannot be reported as it would invade their privacy. Where are the lines drawn?

The subject of bathroom breaks seems to have broken from reality. As moms everywhere will tell you, make sure you go before you leave home because if the ACLU is successful, you won’t want to know what is going on in the stall next to you.


Recent & Relevant Posts on AFTAH Website:

Barber on MRSA: Pro-Homosexual Elites Are Endangering Children and Society
HIV/AIDS: Anybody Can Get It? (Highly recommended!)
Love Letter from Canada: AFTAH = Nazis
Florida Marriage Amendment in Danger of Not Making 2008 Ballot
Homosexual Letter on Folsom: ‘Get these Numbskulls to Keep their Damned Clothes on’
Big City Homosexual Men Are Epicenter of New Virulent MRSA Staph Strain
Have Universities Become the Enemy of a Free Society?
Joe Dallas Critiques ‘The Gay Gospel’
C-SPAN Airs Speech by Homosexual Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson — on Christmas Eve
Revealing Quotes by Advocates of Homosexuality ("gay" monogamy includes outside sex ... )
The ‘Gay’ Press: Where ‘AIDS Prevention’ and Promiscuity Promotion Co-Exist
Drug-Heavy Gay ‘Circuit Parties’ as HIV/AIDS Fundraisers? The White Party in Miami

Will You Help AFTAH Stand For Truth?
The ACLU is well-funded as it crusades for evil and bizarre causes like the "right" to have deviant sex in a bathroom stall (!). Would you help us defend decency and your religious liberties by regularly praying for and financially supporting Americans For Truth? To make a donation online to Americans For Truth, click on our new-and-improved online donation page (you can use PayPal or your own credit card):

We are grateful for those of you who have signed

up as monthly "Truth Team" givers by pledging a donation on of at least $20/month to AFTAH. We think this is a good investment in your children's and their children's future!
Our goal is to sign up 1,000 monthly AFTAH 'Truth Team' givers to put us on healthy financial footing.

You can also send your tax-deductible donation via regular mail to:

Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522


Have you ever seen the testimony of a former homosexual?

AFTAH Banquet Videos Now Available!
Excellent teaching tool for young people who are being brainwashed on today's counterfeit 'tolerance'!

The AFTAH Banquet Videos are finally available and will be shipped ASAP! To order a complete DVD (or CD) set of both ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran’s and parental rights hero David Parker’s outstanding talks, make an online donation of at least $25 postpaid to Americans For Truth ( Please use the online form at to specify your order. You can substitute an audio CD but you must request this specifically. To order by regular mail, send your check or money order specifying “2007 Banquet DVD” (or CD) to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

Bulk Orders available: 2 for $40; 3 for $55; 4 for $70; add $10 for each additional DVD or contact us at (or 630-717-7631) for large bulk order pricing.


To make a tax-deductible donation to AFTAH using your credit card or PayPal, go to:

To subscribe to Americans For Truth emails, click

To make a tax-deductible donation to Americans For Truth:

To become an AFTAH Truth Team member (donating at least $20/mo.), go to

To sign up for our Feedblitz service to receive notice of all AFTAH web postings, click

Send your tax-deductible donation via regular mail to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Thank you!


Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Romney Changed from Conservative Reagan to Liberal Dad to Win Michigan

Romney in Michigan changed from being Conservative Ronald Reagan to being his Liberal Dad George Romney to win Michigan.


Mitt Romney's flip-flop: Like father, like son?


Posted: February 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bruce Wilson

Is the following fictional press release a flashback to actual events that occurred in 1968, or a prediction of events that will yet occur in 2008?
Gov. Romney's once promising presidential campaign ended badly today. Romney showed tremendous promise early in the race, but lost ground after admitting to a change of heart on one of the most important moral issues of our day. Romney never recovered from the setback and he stumbled across the Republican finish line in sixth place.
If you recognized it as a flashback, you're right. It's a press release that could have been written in 1968 when George Romney, a former governor of Michigan, competed for the Republican presidential nomination. Romney was an early favorite, but his campaign crashed and burned when he changed his position on the Vietnam War. The campaign might have survived the fact that the once hawkish Romney turned against the war, but his lame explanation for the reversal was even more troubling than the reversal itself. Romney's statement that his original support for the war was the result of "brainwashing" by pro-war generals doomed his campaign. Not many voters were comfortable with the possibility that their president might be susceptible to brainwashing.

(Column continues below)

On the other hand, if you thought the fictional press release was a prediction of what might yet occur in 2008, you might also be right. Mitt Romney, the son of George Romney, is following in his father's political footsteps. He recently completed a term as governor of Massachusetts and has launched a campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

There is certainly much in the distinguished father's life that should be emulated by his son. But it should be clear to anyone – even a son – that the senior Romney's flip-flop was one step any presidential candidate should avoid, not emulate. Yet Mitt's recent reversal of position on abortion reminds us once again that sons often seem destined to repeat the mistakes of their fathers.

Mitt Romney's change of position on abortion has been well-documented and acknowledged by Romney himself. In his two Massachusetts campaigns – a failed 1994 U.S Senate bid and a victorious 2002 gubernatorial effort – Romney unabashedly presented himself as a pro-choice candidate. For example, in response to a 2002 campaign questionnaire, Romney wrote:

"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

But in late 2004, Romney had a change of heart on abortion. It was triggered by a meeting with experts to help him better understand stem cell research. He explained it in a recent National Review Online interview:

"At one point, the experts pointed out that embryonic stem cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. … it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality."

It's a very troubling conversion story. If Mr. Romney was shocked by the fact that a 14-day-old embryo created in a test tube might be destroyed, what in the world had he been thinking while millions of naturally created embryos were destroyed through abortion in the years between 1994 and 2004? In that decade, Romney openly supported the legal destruction of more than 10 million embryos that had advanced well beyond 14 days of life. Most were 45 to 90 days old, but many had advanced to nearly six months, and a rare few even beyond that.

Romney arrived at his pro-life decision in such a backwards manner that it's difficult to take his explanation seriously.

So, what does this conversion story tell us about Mitt Romney?

Is he a political opportunist willing to take one side of a life and death issue when seeking liberal votes and quite willing to take the other side of the same issue when seeking conservative votes?

Or is he someone who adopted a political position on a moral issue without giving any serious thought of his own to the life and death implications of the position he adopted?

Sound familiar? It should. It's the same two possibilities voters pondered about George Romney back in 1968. Either way, it's a pretty damning mistake for a presidential candidate to make.

And a very interesting example of like father, like son.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Questions for Kathleen Willey

Dear Kathleen,

It is an honor to interview you. Thank you for the courage you’ve shown through your whole ordeal. Here are the questions.


Fred Martinez

Questions for Kathleen Willey

There is overwhelming evidence that you and others bring out about the sexual abuse and sexual misuse of yourself, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Dolly Kaye Browning, Elizabeth Gracen, Monica Lewisnsky and others. Why are some liberal bloggers still claiming Bill Clinton is not a sexual predator?

As for Clinton’s sexual assault on you, the same liberal bloggers bring up Independent Counsel Robert Ray and Julie Steele who claim that you aren’t credible. Why are the claims of Steele and Ray about you not credible?

In your book “Target” you said “I believe Clinton would have raped me that day, just as, I believe, he raped Juanita Broadrick.” Do you believe that Clinton didn’t just sexually assault you, but committed attempted rape?

In “Target” you said Hillary “was cursing an aide with a very foul mouth. Then she would see somebody who mattered and instantly pour it on, all sweetness.” According to psychologist Martha Stout sociopaths “show sham emotions, but underneath they are indifferent to others’ suffering. They live to dominate.” Do you think Hillary and Bill are sociopaths?

You wrote this book “only to tell what I know about Hillary.” What the three things that you wish every voter had in their mind about Mrs. Clinton before they vote?

You quote Dick Morris saying “If you’re going to be a sexual predator, be pro-choice” reference to Bill Clinton. Why is abortion more important to feminists than protecting women from sexual predators?

Boxer Mike Tyson went to prison for rape. Do you think Clinton should have gone to prison for any or all of the following crimes?
-Raping Juanita Broadrick
-Sexually assaulting you and other women
-Witness intimidation
-Obstruction of justice
-His guilty verdict of the federal misdemeanor of releasing your private letters

Ex-Clinton friend Dick Morris called Hillary’s army of private investigators Clinton’s Secret Police. Your book says that you and others believe that it was Hillary’s goons who did the following:
-Intimidated witnesses
-“[W]oman after woman has been demonized by their [the Clinton’s] secret police” according to Dick Morris
-Threatened your children
-Threatened your friend’s children
-Took one of your cats and killed another
-Left an animal skull on your porch
-Said you were in danger
-Followed you
-Put numerous nails in your car wheels
-Hid under your deck in the middle of the night
-Did a Watergate-like break-in into your house in 2007 and took a manuscript of your book “Target”
If Hillary is elected President, do you think she is capable of even doing worst things?

David Schipper, chief investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, recalled a priest came to see him after the impeachment who said he was an exorcist.

The priest said to him “There are satanic influences in the White House, and they all want you out of here.”

“Yes, Bill Clinton is a bad guy,” Schipper acknowledged.

“No, not him,” the priest said. “Her.”

Schipper in your book said he thinks Hillary “is evil.” What do you think?

I’ve written for Newsmax and The Conservative Monitor, but most of my work has been for Catholic publications. What do you think we should pray for when we pray for Bill and Hillary? What should we pray for in our next president?

Thank you,


Giuliani Rattled, Cancels Remarks as Pro-lifers Disrupt Sunday Bus Tour Stop

Giuliani Rattled, Cancels Remarks as Pro-lifers Disrupt Sunday Bus Tour Stop

"A third of my generation is dead because of politicians like Giuliani." -- Steven Pokorny, age 28, at Giuliani during meeting in Miami, Sunday, Jan. 13
MIAMI, Jan. 13 /Christian Newswire/ -- Rudy Giuliani was rattled by pro-life advocates and canceled his speech at his first bus-tour event Sunday in Miami. Activists have planned confrontations with Rudy for every stop of his Florida bus tour. Photos available online.

On Sunday, Jan. 13, at approximately 12:15 PM, pro- life activists were in the crowd at The Green Street Cafe (located at 3110 Commodor Plaza, Coconut Grove Florida, just outside Miami) waiting for Giuliani to begin his Florida Bus Tour.

When Rudy Giuliani arrived, Joseph Landry (age 26) was within 5 feet of the candidate, and began yelling: You are a baby killer! You are a baby killer! Florida is pro-life! Rudy wants public funding for abortion!" See news report.

Law enforcement officials immediately escorted Mr. Landry from the area, while Mr. Landry continued his monologue.

Within Minutes, Steven Pokorny, age 28, stood to his feet and cried out, "A third of my generation is dead because of politicians like Giuliani! Giuliani wants to kill children and have you pay for it!" Law enforcement did not stop Mr. Pokorny.

At that point, Giuliani left the building, without addressing the crowd.

Mr. Pokorny was able to follow Mr. Giuliani for more than a minute, yelling out about Rudy's pro-choice, pro- homosexual agenda. Again, Mr. Pokorny was not interrupted by police.

Giuliani officials had no idea how many pro-lifers were in the crowd, and how many more times Giuliani would be confronted. This might explain why Mr. Giuliani did not make any remarks - and left the meeting without addressing supporters.

Pro-lifers have scheduled confrontations with Rudy on every stop of his Florida Bus tour.

Video footage of the confrontations with Rudy is available upon request.

Christian Newswire

Sunday, January 13, 2008

An Interview with Michael D. O’Brien

Interview—Island of the World
Written by Michael D. O'Brien
Wednesday, 26 December 2007

An Interview with Michael D. O’Brien on his new novel

The Island of the World

by Lifesite News (
Combermere, Ontario, December 26, 2007

Question: Tell us about your new novel, to give readers a sense of it.

O'Brien: The Island of the World is the story of a child born in 1933 into the turbulent world of the Balkans and tracing his life into the third millennium. The central character is Josip Lasta, the son of an impoverished school teacher in a remote village high in the mountains of the Bosnian interior. As the novel begins, World War II is underway and the entire region of Yugoslavia is torn by conflicting factions: German and Italian occupying armies, and the rebel forces that resist them — the fascist Ustashe, Serb nationalist Chetniks, and Communist Partisans. As events gather momentum, hell is unleashed, and the young and the innocent are caught in the path of great evils. Their only remaining strength is their religious faith and their families.

Q: Is this primarily a historical novel, or perhaps a political one?

O’Brien: No, it is neither, though of course history and politics play important roles in the story. Its primary focus is on persons, dramatized through the life of a person, a soul. However, the history that is part of the plot recounts accurately what happened, and as such the book may be somewhat controversial. For more than a century, the confused and highly inflammatory history of former-Yugoslavia has been the subject of numerous books, many of them rife with revisionist history and propaganda. The peoples of the Balkans live on the border of three worlds: the Islamic, the Orthodox Slavic East, and Catholic Europe, and as such they stand in the path of major world conflicts that are not only geo-political but fundamentally spiritual. This novel cuts to the core question: how does a person retain his identity, indeed his humanity, in any absolutely dehumanizing situation?

Q: How does he retain his humanity?

O’Brien: In the life of the central character, I try to show that this will demand suffering and sacrifice, heroism and even holiness. When he is twelve years old, his entire world is destroyed, and so begins a lifelong journey to find again the faith which the blows of evil have shattered. The plot takes the reader through Josip's youth, his young manhood, life under the Communist regime, imprisonment, hope and loss and unexpected blessings, the growth of his creative powers as a poet, and the ultimate test of his life. This novel is about the crucifixion of a soul — and resurrection.

Q: Why did you write this particular book? What story are your trying to tell through it?

O'Brien: The original conception for Island was personal, in other words a novel that just grew in my imagination as I came to know people who had lived in former Yugoslavia during decisive moments of its history, especially in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. At the same time, there was an interior spiritual prompting, quite strong, a sense that the experience of these people has significance for the entire world. Both senses struck me simultaneously.

Q: In what sense does their story have significance for the world?

O’Brien: The 20th century was a period of crucifixion for many nations and peoples, not only because of geo-political reasons but also because a definitive stage in history was enacted before our eyes, a multi-dimensional one. The consistent religious persecution that always accompanied the crushing of genuine democratic aspirations in those nations had roots in existential strata deeper than ideology. The wars of the past century and those currently underway are, in essence, spiritual struggles. And it is far from over.

Q: When you say “spiritual” doesn’t this imply abstract concepts? How does the spiritual affect the powerful forces of nations, wars, economies, culture, and other factors that shape mankind’s future?

O’Brien: Man’s spiritual condition changes how he understands himself and the world around him. When a sufficient number of people are spiritually impoverished, or deformed, they can be motivated to unite into factions that work toward radical changes in society—and this effects negatively the entire human community when their “abstractions” work out their terrible logic. The revolutions and tyrannies of the 20th century provide ample evidence of this. Yet the decisive events of that era are not yet resolved, the effects go on. In the 21st century, new forms of the old beast are materializing in the contemporary world, but they are cosmeticized, disguised, masked.

Q: What is this mask, precisely?

O’Brien: I believe we must exercise great caution about any collectivist ideas that present themselves to the mind as solutions to “the problem of man.” I include in this category the new globalists' models of what is called universal “governance.” As all ideologues do, they offer us superficial either/or choices. Supposedly, one must choose between war and world government. They do not understand that globalism will not change the fundamental human condition. Globalism is ultra-nationalism expanded to a planetary scale, without the safety measures of cultural and religious diversity. World-reshapers are long familiar to those people who have lived through political experiments. The survivors have heightened awareness, good antennae: They understand that beneath the supposed humanitarianism of collectivists, in whatever guise they appear, you will always find a killer. Survivors know that presumption and arrogance over mankind brings forth, in time, the fruit of death.

Q: Do you know many survivors?

O’Brien: In my life I have known many people who suffered under Fascism and Soviet Communism. I also have close friendships with a number of Croatian people who are surely heroes, and some of them quite possibly genuine saints. Though the republics of former-Yugoslavia have not received the public attention in the West that other nations suffering under Communist regimes have received, its story is unique and informative. For several decades, Yugoslavia was incorrectly viewed in the West as a benign form of Communist government, Tito’s “socialism with a human face.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The illusion was created by massive propaganda, carefully engineered cultural impressionism for export abroad, and the corrupt motives of some Western governments, which had powerful political and financial investments in their so-called friendship with the Tito regime. When it crumbled, new forms of hell broke loose. I believe that what took place in those lands east of the Adriatic is a microcosm of the ongoing war that will last until the end of time.

Q: What is it about dehumanizing situations — such as those in this book — which can be instrumental in helping or inspiring people to retain their faith and family identity, and perhaps even affirm it?

O'Brien: When human beings are assaulted by radically dehumanizing experiences, as individuals or as part of systemic catastrophes, each of us is put to a fundamental test of character, our core belief about what really goes on in the universe. In such situations, man without God feels that he can rely only on himself, or on politics as pseudo-salvation. By contrast, man in union with God experiences a transcending hope, and a gradual union with Christ. Little by little he learns that his sufferings are redemptive. Easy to say, much harder to live. In fact, the blows of radical evil put the soul to an ultimate test.

Q: What is this test and how does one react to such a test?

O’Brien: One either collapses inwardly and withdraws, escaping further into the realm of the autonomous self, the world of fear and self-preservation at all costs, regardless of what is betrayed. Conversely, one strikes outward in rage, strives to seize the weapons of death in order to overcome death. Both solutions are inevitably short-lived and breed more forms of destruction. The third way is Christ's way—one which is open to all of us, but which is impossible to discover, let alone live fully, without an ever-deepening union with Jesus. It is a way that is neither passive nor aggressive. But to find this way, man must begin to learn, at least at a fundamental human level, that he is more than a clever animal or a cell in a collective. In our times, man no longer knows who he is, cannot apprehend his eternal value, because historical and social forces all around him define him to himself in tragically stunted terms, minimize or negate his value for the sake of “the People” or variations on a perceived “common good.” This is as true in so-called democracies that are based in materialism as it is for overtly oppressive regimes. Only in Christ can we discover who we really are; only in Christ can we discover the paths to authentic common goods.

Q: Are there relatives, friends, or people you've actually known on whom this story is based?

O'Brien: Many of the sub-plots and secondary stories and characters, and numerous details of crucial scenes, were told to me by the people who experienced them. The background historical settings are more the fruit of three years of extensive research. Again, because of the massive amount of revisionist history regarding those times, it was absolutely necessary to cross-check every detail, and then cross-check the sources. This process was painstaking, yet highly instructive for me, because it revealed something about the nature of disinformation in our times, the distortion of historical facts and their significance by sources in both East and West. It was, in an empirical way, very important for me to meet many Croatian and Slovenian families, whose uncles, fathers, brothers, had been slaughtered in Partisan death-pits. Some escaped to tell about it once they reached the West. Only since 1991 has the extent of the mass murders at Bleiburg and Maribor and also in the forested regions just south of the Austrian border begun to come to light as more and more mass graves are discovered. I am not referring to the later genocide committed by the Serbs in 1991-95, but to the genocide committed immediately after WWII by the government of Yugoslavia. Here in Canada, I personally know six families in exile who lost family members through that wholesale slaughter. Hundreds of thousands of unarmed people, a large portion of whom were civilians, were exterminated by Tito's Partisans with the knowledge of the Allied forces. Later, the concentration camps on Yugoslav soil were established. In one of the worst, Goli Otok, for example, it is estimated that 30,000 to 50,000 political prisoners and religious prisoners of conscience died under conditions of extreme brutality.

Q: What can people learn through reading this work of fiction about the effects of disastrous global events of our times?

O'Brien: It is estimated by human rights watchers that more than 170 million people died at the hands of their own governments during the 20th century. This is a sobering statistic. It is not paranoia to ponder the possibility that Statism, especially in its social revolutionary forms, by its very nature negates what is most human in man, his absolute value, his eternal value I should add. Whenever his ultimate worth as an individual person is denied, the whole of society is damaged, because the very architecture of genuine human community has been damaged at its foundations. In Europe and North America, state-sanctioned and even state-funded murder of pre-birth children, as well as the growing practice of euthanasia of the elderly and infirm, are ominous signs. Yet we tend to minimize what these signs really mean because we presume, quite naïvely, that we are living in a democracy, and we endlessly talk about it as if it were a permanent fixture of our world. What the survivors of the wars and tyrannies of the past century have to teach us is that democracy can disappear more swiftly than we think, if certain psychological, economic, and cultural forces are manipulated by social engineers. I find it fascinating that the overwhelming majority of survivors whom I know are consistent in their warnings about the current state of the West.

Q: What warnings do they offer us?

O’Brien: They say practically with one voice that we are morally and spiritually unprepared to simply recognize, let alone resist, the accelerating corruption of our civilization. I am not so much speaking of threats posed by militant Islamicists or the very real dangers of an expansionist Communist China, but rather I’m referring to our own internal auto-demolition. As a number of Catholic philosophers have warned, notably Josef Pieper and Etienne Gilson, and the historian Christopher Dawson, the rhetoric about freedom and democracy always increases as the real thing declines. Our capacity to exercise civilized co-responsibility—to live in a free and responsible way has been steadily declining since the late 1960’s, and this social revolution has primary come about by the top-down imposition of radically immoral laws. We must not presume that democracies are immune from degeneration into totalitarianism. It is also worth considering that a totalitarianism with a “democratic” face may bring about a more comprehensive and long-range corruption of what is best in the human community, because it can always argue that it is not what, in fact, it is.

Q: So this novel is a warning about new forms of totalitarianism?

O’Brien: Unlike some of my earlier novels that explicitly warned about the new totalitarianism, Island does so implicitly. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have warned us explicitly about the dangers we face. Although in this novel I dramatize some of the dangers they have discussed, I do not so much teach or preach as I try to reveal a living truth about each and every human person. To violate any one is to violate all. Moreover, such violation is an assault against the fatherhood of God. My objective is to raise the questions that are absolutely necessary for the sustaining of a truly human civilization.

Q: What are some of the specific spiritual insights you're trying to bring forth for people reading this book?

O'Brien: I hope to communicate the truth that man is born into, and lives in, and dies in a war zone—the War that will last until the end of time. Equally, that the world is inexpressibly beautiful and full of unceasing wonders. And that within ourselves, and within each other, the greatest wonders are to be found. I try to show through the unfolding of providence in the narrative that man is not locked into a mechanistic universe, that he is not a number or a cog, but rather a phenomenon created for love, for life in a community of persons. I try to show through the central character that we must never lose hope.

Q: Hope is the subject of Pope Benedict’s latest encyclical. How does your novel reinforce his teachings?

O’Brien: What Benedict has taught with such clarity and strength in Spe Salvi, I hope I have incarnated in the form of fiction. My central character Josip Lasta suffers grievous harm because of the blindness of men of power. He endures trials that would, I think, destroy most of us, and indeed he comes very close to despair. The Holy Father has frequently spoken of our need to see beneath the surface appearances of our times, to look up and beyond the prison walls of contemporary false solutions to the human condition. To recognize the lies and the despair beneath much of the grand rhetoric of the new world order. Both he and John Paul II were unhesitating in their analysis of what is destructive in all forms of materialism—including Marxist-socialist and certain Western Capitalist forms of it, by which I mean Capitalism without conscience, an anti-Personalist form of Capitalism. In contrast, the Holy Fathers have urged us to think with the mind of Christ, and not with the mind of social revolution. They teach us to call God our Father, to be in relationship with Him as a Person, and in this way to come to know ourselves as beloved persons—with unique identity, with names—not as numbers.

Q: How can we find the mind of Christ?

O’Brien: By seeking him earnestly and prayerfully, by letting go of our ideologies and our obsession with security and comfort, which all too often function as idols, consciously and subconsciously, that block grace and reject true vision. We must wake up—and part of this awakening will demand the self-honesty to see how far we have been indoctrinated by false concepts of man’s nature. Of particular concern to me is the way we in the West form our opinions and judgments about all things human and social, and how our perceptions of practically everything have been warped by materialism. We must understand that the sane and reasonable ground (where surely most of us want to be) can never be the precise mid-point on a horizontal line between two ideological or perceptual poles. Poles are always shifting. Cultural poles, with all their power to influence politics, are especially unreliable. And the poles in men's minds are more unstable than these. The true center is above. Right choices, right politics, healthy cultural life, will flow from that re-orientation to the hierarchical nature of the cosmos. May I say it again? — The true center is above.

Q: Are you working on another book?

O'Brien: I thought I had written everything I could possibly write, and was happy to return to relative silence. Completing The Island of the World was rather like giving birth to a child, as much as a man can understand that. But as with human love and fecundity, life never ceases to yearn towards fruitfulness. In recent months I've been experiencing a new story upwelling in my heart and imagination. I've only put a brief outline and a few crucial scenes on paper at this point, but the inner fountain just doesn't dry up. The provisional title is My Dear Theophilus. I envision it as a novel about the man to whom the apostle Luke addressed his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. Who was he?

I’m also pondering a sequel to my novel Fr. Elijah. This is something I promised myself I would never do, for all kinds of good reasons. But now this same upwelling of story is flooding my imagination. If it ever makes it into print, it will be about what happens to the priest Fr. Elijah when he goes down into Jerusalem to confront the Antichrist.

Curiously, I didn’t want to write any more books, and certainly never decided I would start another. They just arrived, unannounced.

Friday, January 11, 2008

"If Blanket Amnesty is a Losing Issue, so also is Mass Deportation"

The Messy Politics of Illegal Immigration
By Victor Davis Hanson

With the war in Iraq politically on the backburner, illegal immigration is heating up as a campaign issue. The public wants action, and the candidates are scrambling to react.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's sure nomination was first questioned when she flubbed an easy debate question about driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

Sen. John McCain's recovery took off when he backed away from his support of immigration reform that did not first ensure the closure of the border.

Auto Insurance
compare competing quotes, quickly

ZIP code where you park at night.
Do you currently have auto insurance? YesNo
Have you had your US driver’s license for more than 3 years? YesNo
Has any driver in your household had 2 or more accidents or moving violations in the last 3 years? YesNo

Powered by:

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is no longer for "sanctuary cities" that shield illegal aliens from arrest. Like former Gov. Mike Huckabee, he's now a born-again opponent of illegal immigration.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney assures us that some illegal aliens can be deported within 90 days after he's elected.
Sen. Barack Obama may talk of "change," but his relative fuzziness about illegal immigration can't last forever, and at some point he will have to offer more specific proposals.

Some time ago, supporters of open borders lost the debate. The majority of Americans want them closed -- now! They ignore the tired slurs like "anti-immigrant," "racist," "protectionist" and "nativist." And noisy May Day parades with Mexican flags and heated rhetoric from the National Council of La Raza ("The Race") only turn more people off.
It doesn't do any good, either, for a Mexico City functionary to cry about how mean we are to want a secure border with Mexico. Most Americans also tuned that out long ago.

They know instead that Mexico cares mostly about sending north those it won't or can't feed and house -- so it can skim off from them billions in remittances once they arrive in the United States.

Mexico City, of course, could reform the country's laws and economy whenever it wants. But it changes only enough to draw in tourists or Americans looking to buy vacation homes, not to better the lives of millions of its mestizo poor in the heartland.

The spin masters may think illegal immigration is an issue that pits conservative Republicans against liberal Democrats. But it doesn't always.

Nowadays, worry about illegal immigration is just as likely to mean that African-Americans are terrified of racist alien gangs in Los Angeles. Asian-Americans are frustrated that their relatives with college degrees wait years to emigrate legally, while thousands without high-school diplomas to the south simply break the law to enter the United States.

And many Mexican-Americans are probably tired of being expected to defend the indefensible of foreign nationals breaking immigration laws simply because they may share an ethnic heritage with illegal aliens.

To the extent Democratic candidates ignore illegal immigration, or demonize those who worry over hundreds of thousands of new illegal aliens each year, or talk of guest workers and amnesty before they mention closing the borders, it is a losing issue that could alienate millions of voters.

Democratic candidates can't really claim that redneck racists are rushing to the border to clash with poor campesinos just crossing to better their lives, because many poor Democrats also resent how illegal labor drives down their own wages. It is mostly the American poor and middle class who worry about the sudden influx of thousands who don't speak English and often need public assistance.

But the Republican candidates have to watch it, too. If blanket amnesty is a losing issue, so also is mass deportation -- the practicality and morality of which are rarely considered by those rightly calling for an end to illegal immigration. Busing every illegal alien back to Mexico right now might resemble the past messy partition of India and Pakistan, and reopen the issue in a way that Democrats can legitimately exploit.

What then might an astute candidate advocate?

Close the border now through fencing, more agents, employer sanctions, enforcement of the law and verifiable identification. Restore faith in the melting pot by insisting that new legal arrivals learn English and the customs and protocols of the United States.

Explain to the Mexican and Central American governments that using the United States to avoid addressing internal problems -- while making easy dollars off the backs of their own expatriate laborers -- is over.

Finally, deport aliens who have broken the law, are not working or have just arrived. Some illegal aliens will not like the new atmosphere of tough enforcement and will voluntarily go back home. Others may have criminal records or no history of employment and should leave as well.

But many millions of law-abiding, employed illegal aliens of long residence will wish to stay. We should allow these to remain in the United States while they apply for citizenship -- if they are willing to learn promptly our language and customs.

Republican candidates must risk angering their base by ruling out mass deportation. Democrats should support closing the border tightly and quickly -- and not cave in to open-borders pressure groups.

Making these tough choices now is what most voters want. The candidates of both parties in the next few months will either adjust accordingly or lose elections.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Why is Heroes so Popular?

Steve Ditko, the original artist and co-creator of the Spider-Man comic, said we need heroes. The television series Heroes which "emulates the style of American comic books" is giving America this need.

Ditko explained that heroes in art and literature must be measured by the moral courage shown in objective good vs. evil choices.

The artist now seems prophetic for saying in the show that if we glorify the anti-hero in art, then anti-life and violence will come into our culture. The anti-heroes of the Columbine-like killings in public schools and the Sept. 11 terrorists seem to justify his claim.

What our American and global culture needs are heroes as models. In the program, the artist and co-creator of Spider-Man says, "Aristotle said that art is more important than history. History tells how man did act. Art shows how man should and could act. It creates a model.

"The self-flawed and anti-hero provide the heroic label without the need to act better. A crooked cop, a flawed cop, is not a valid model of a good law enforcer," Ditko said in the program. "An anti-cop corrupts the legal good, and an anti-hero corrupts the moral good."

You can help Wikipedia change the world!
[Show more]
Heroes (TV series)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Heroes summary
Heroes is an American science fiction serial drama television series created by Tim Kring. It premiered on NBC on September 25, 2006.[1] The show tells the story of several people who "thought they were like everyone else... until they realized they have incredible abilities." These people soon realize they have a role in preventing catastrophe and saving humanity. The series emulates the style of American comic books in aesthetic, as well as storytelling (i.e. short, multi-episode story arcs that build upon a larger, more encompassing arc). Kring said "we have talked about where the show goes up to five seasons."[2]

The first season attracted an average of 14.3 million viewers in the United States and received the highest rating for any NBC drama premiere in five years.[3] The first season's run consisted of 23 episodes; 24 episodes were ordered for the second season.[4] The second season of Heroes premiered on September 24, 2007,[5] but only 11 of 24 episodes have been broadcast,[6] due to the writers' strike.[7][8] The dispute also led to the postponement of a six episode spin-off, Heroes: Origins, which was originally expected to air in April and May of 2008.[9][10]


Hillary's Win ?

By Tom Roeser ::
Personal Asides: Hillary's Win in New Hampshire Leads to Seven Conclusions.

Posted: 09 Jan 2008 08:29 AM CST

Hillary's Win.

Hillary's come-from-behind win in New Hampshire tells me seven things. First, no matter what Billy Kristol thinks, female tears... adroitly held back and captivatingly displayed... helps. So watch the tear ducts well up at strategic points in the future. I was right about that, guys.

Second, I'm not willing to say Barack Obama won't get the final nod, because I think he will-but there's a dump truck load of stuff coming down the road with his name on it, special delivery from Hillary. You're going to see an end to the nauseatingly saccharine media honeymoon very shortly now since the Big Feet on TV realize they have been made suckers of by buying into that goofy Rorschach inkblot test where they see "hope-hope-hope" and "change-change-change" in every mundane sentence and gesture he employs.

Continuing with No. 2: ... And it's good he gets the same critical examination as everyone else must get. Earlier I watched Bill Clinton explain something that I had never been aware of. That oft-used claim that Barack uses that he never voted for the Iraq War while Hillary did is spuriously misstated-and it isn't Barack's fault but the adulated media that he wasn't called on it. None other than veteran anti-Iraq senator Chuck Hagel voted for the resolution because he... and all other senators... were told by Coni Rice that there would be other submissions to Congress before war would be engaged. Dear Barack the wunderkind never specified that and the media were only to glad not to research it. Well I for one didn't know it. You'll see a lot more healthy examinations coming of Barack Obama from now on.

Three: The little lady gave me a glimmer tonight... just a glimmer... of what the old Democratic party of patriotism used to have. She said that she would end the war the right way-meaning, I took it, with honor. I never had the view that Obama who is a direct descendent of the McCarthy-McGovern hybrid cared a whit about honorable end. To me he is and was always a very weak candidate, a weed blowing in the wind, reacting to the cross-currents of breeze. I feel she has a mettle that is a distinct improvement.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

"Anti-Christian Sentiments are . . . Deadly and Cynical"

Top Seven Acts of Christian Bashing in America of 2007

FT. LAUDERDALE, Florida, Jan. 9 /Christian Newswire/ -- "From murder and intimidation, to the crass and the blasphemous, 2007 was a horrendous year of Christian bashing," said Dr. Gary L. Cass, Chairman and CEO of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "Anti- Christian sentiments are being fomented in the culture and are becoming more deadly and cynical," said Cass. "Impressionable young people are being swept up in anti-Christian hysteria, aided and abetted by a greedy, a-moral entertainment industry. Mocking Christians, blaspheming their faith and ridiculing their values has become the easy way for 'entertainers' to shock their way to the top."

"The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) calls on anti-Christian politicians, Hollywood and New York media elites to stop the Christian bashing and take responsibility for the culture of hate towards Christians they have helped to create. The CADC will work aggressively to stop this dangerous and irresponsible Christian bashing in 2008."

1.) Colorado Church Murders--"You Christians brought this on yourselves I'm coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. ... God, I can't wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die. ..." Posted by a troubled young man, Matthew Murray, ten hours after killing two at the Arvada missionary base and two hours before killing two at a Colorado Springs church. Churches used to be considered sanctuaries, but now they are targets for the hateful and the deranged. The CADC calls on every church to be prepared to use deadly force, if necessary, to protect their congregations.

2.) Federal Hate Crimes Bill--The 2007 Federal Hate Crimes Bill which threatens religious liberties and lays the groundwork for "thought crime," which has no place in American law and violates the concept of equal protection under the law. As has occurred in other nations, these laws pave the way for Christians to be silenced and even arrested because they believe that homosexual acts are sinful. It is totalitarian regimes which punish thoughts, not free societies. Thomas Jefferson declares that "the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions."

3.) Violence on San Francisco Church--In September, Christians in San Francisco spoke out against a blasphemous anti-Christian advertisement for the Folsom Street Fair, a perverted "fair" for the sadomasochistic, leather fetish community. The ad mimics the classic Christian painting of Christ at the Last Supper. In the ad, Christ and the 12 Disciples are portrayed as sexual deviants provocatively posed before a table of sex toys.

4.) Attack on Jerry Falwell--CNN reached a new low when Anderson Cooper invited Christopher Hitchens, editor of Vanity Fair Magazine, on his show the day of Jerry Falwell's death to make critical remarks about Falwell. Hitchens made the most reprehensible and offensive remarks one can imagine against a Christian minister, Jerry Falwell, even on the day of his death. Christopher Hitchens called Falwell "a little toad ... a horrible little evil old man...a conscious charlatan and bully and actual danger to democracy, to culture, to civilization."

5.) CNN's "God's Warriors" and "Friends of God"--Two biased, anti-Christian documentaries were produced and aired. One by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Alexandra, "Friends of God" on HBO and the other by CNN's Christiane Amanpour, "God's Warriors." At least they tried to act as if they wanted to be fair. Of course, they failed. Evangelicals are almost 100 million strong and very diverse but are reduced to clichéd caricatures or are portrayed as the moral equivalents of Islamic terrorists.

6.) John Edwards's Campaign Bloggers who called Christian supporters of President Bush his "wing nut Christofascist base." One asked, 'What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,' to which she replied, 'You'd have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.' They posed the thoughtful question of religious conservatives, "What don't you lousy %#*@! +# understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?"

7.) Golden Compass, the Movie--Phillip Pullman's atheistic answer to C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series because destroying the church and killing God in the mind of every child is the best revenge. Why be damned alone when you can take a few million souls with you and get rich on the proceeds.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, please contact Kevin McVicker at Shirley & Banister Public Affairs at (703) 739-5920 or (800) 536-5920.

Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Kevin McVicker, Shirley & Banister Public Affairs, 703-739-5920, 800-536-5920,

Christian Anti-Defamation Commission

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

"John McCain has Never Indicated his Support for a Human Life Amendment"

McCain's Support for GOP Pro-life Plank Questioned

By Pete Winn Senior Staff Writer

January 07, 2008

( - As a resurgent John McCain campaigned in New Hampshire Friday, some pro-life Republicans questioned the Arizona senator's commitment to the pro-life plank of the Republican Party.

McCain, who finished third in the Iowa caucuses last Thursday behind two former governors - Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney - is surging in the polls in New Hampshire, tied for first place with Romney heading into Tuesday's Republican presidential contest.

But Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, said she is "not comfortable at all" with McCain's record on abortion.

"It indicates that he is willing to vote for measures that regulate or restrict the practice of abortion," Parro told Cybercast News Service. "But in terms of ending legal abortion, there's no evidence he shares that goal with those of us that are pro-life."

Parro questioned McCain's commitment to the GOP's pro-life plank. It states that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed," calls for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and backs legislation "to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

"John McCain has never indicated his support for a human life amendment," Parro said. "And his position in support of embryonic stem-cell research indicates that Mr. McCain is not truly pro-life. If you support killing people at the very outset of their lives, then there is no possible way you would support ending legal abortion."

McCain has voted repeatedly for funding for embryonic stem-cell research. He has also been criticized for opposing and then supporting the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide.

Parro is not alone in her criticism. In New Hampshire, a pro-life Republican who spoke to Cybercast News Service on background as "Bill," called McCain's record on Roe "weak."

"Back in 1999, when he ran the first time for president, he said he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade," said Bill. "Later he came out and had to clarify his position. It never was very satisfactory to me."

In August 1999, during a campaign swing through California, McCain told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that though he would "love to see a point" where the Supreme Court decision could be repealed, he did not support its repeal.

"Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations," the Chronicle reported McCain as saying.

McCain subsequently told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview that though he favored the ultimate repeal of Roe, "we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe vs. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be (undergoing) illegal and dangerous operations."

Calls to the McCain campaign were not returned by press time, but his 2008 campaign materials point out that McCain believes "Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned," and if elected president, he "will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench."

Further, the candidate favors returning the issue to the states, as his campaign papers state: "Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat."