About Me

Name:John Ostrowski
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Why does the world love Obama so much?

I don't know, but here's a great editorial cartoon from the San Diego Union-Tribune that I spotted in Newsweek:


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Because always being serious gets boring -- Urban Ninja!

We all talk a lot about politics, news, religion, etc. It's great fun, but we all need a little diversion once in a while. Courtesey of Robert James Hoffman III, and re-edited by Sons of Liberty comes the hilarious Urban Ninja Special Edition:


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who would've guessed?

Apparently, Americans want smaller government. Really? I never would have thought that in a million years. This isn't news, but I'm sure all the liberals in media are quite surprised by this.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Look at me, I'm a celebrity endorsing a politician/issue without really understanding it

Nothing new here. Michael J. Fox has admitted that he hasn't read the Missouri stem cell initiative. He then proved this by claiming that it doesn't legalize human cloning (it does).

Maybe celebrites should stick to what they do best. Or, at least stick to not doing what they do worst -- being intelligent.

*Oy, that last sentence makes me look fairly unintelligent. Oh well, my point remains.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Down with the paper/logging industry!

In response to the video I posted below, I made my own little satirical video. Hopefully, I come across as being just as bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, and utterly naive and idealistic as the group below me.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Save teh Internet!

What makes it funny is that they're so sincere (sincere and utterly naive) (h/t to Miniature American Flags):


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Election time is approaching

Because we are about a week and a half away from elections, I thought I'd post some valuable resources that are available online for people to use. First, I'll admit this by acknowledging that certain issues hold much more sway with me. This has to do mainly with the moral weight of certain issues, and the amount of people they affect. To me, pro-life issues trump all others. I consider myself a paleolibertarian, but I will happily tolerate a statist (such as William Lipinski, a representative from Illinois) if he votes pro-life (which he does). So, of course, the most important resources to me are the ones that tell of a candidate's stance on life issues. But, I acknowledge the importance of secondary issues, so I will provide other resources. Here goes:

The important thing to keep in mind is that you should not let political party determine your voting habit. Yes, political party is a nice heuristic device, but if you go into the voting booth knowing nothing about a candidate but his party, you are doing a diservice to everyone. Believe it or not, there are honorable Democrats out there, and as I said before, I'll vote pro-life Democrat over pro-abortion Republican any day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The mind boggles at such stupidity

So now, to get into women's bathrooms in New York subways as a man you just need to pretend to be a woman. That's right: pretend. That's all these "gender-confused" men are doing. It's pretend.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

US bishops may vote to deny Eucharist to abortion supporters

It's about time. Lifesite has the story:

The U.S. bishops will vote on a proposed document, "Happy Are Those Who Are Called To His Supper: On Preparing To Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist" during their annual November meeting in Baltimore, Nov. 13-16.

The document, addressed to all the faithful, points out that Catholics may not receive communion if they do not accept Church teaching on matters such as abortion and homosexuality.  Catholics should refrain from Holy Communion, says the document, "when they lack adherence to what the Church authoritatively teaches on matters of faith and morals."


This isn't about the Church being political. The Church is in the business of saving souls, and to allow those in mortal sin to receive the Eucharist would be unthinkable. Receving the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin is a sacrilege and a mortal sin, and the Church must come out and condemn people and politicans who both formally support abortion and believe themselves worthy to receive Holy Communion. In the case of such public sins, it is within the Church's authority to take proactive steps toward saving people from sin.

On a related note, here is a letter that Pope Benedict XVI wrote will still a cardinal on this same subject.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Have prayers been answered?

Of the things I pray for often, one is the reunion of two specific groups to union with Rome -- sedevacantists and those of the Orthodox faith. With the possible revival of the Tridentine mass (as in, local priests would not need induits from bishops), one of those groups might be reunited with Rome -- the Society of St. Pius X, the traditionalist Catholics who split in 1988. All that remains is for the group to accept the Church as it is (because, really, one does not get excommunicated so much as one excommunicates oneself).

I think all Catholics should be praying that this reunion happens.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Gay? Fine by me."

I recently saw a shirt with this message on it: "gay? fine by me." All I could do was laugh.

Consider this message on a t-shirt for a second: it just screams self-righteous moral superiority. "Look at me, I don't have a problem with homosexuals. Look at how tolerant I am. I'm fighting homophobes."

Honestly, this is similar to Live 8 (I think that was the name) that was held last year, where a bunch of liberal do-gooders got together and listened to pop music while pretending that they were helping Africa. Right. Because going to concerts is a real proactive thing to do. And now we have shirts that enable people to fight homophobes (as the Web site claims) simply be wearing them. What? I don't approve of homosexual behavior, but this shirt doesn't threaten my beliefs nor intimidate be. In fact, it makes me laugh. Only a liberal could come up with a t-shirt that would make the wearer appear patrionizing, self-righteous and pretentious. all at the same time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Have Christians been swindled?


I don't know if there is any reason to believe claims by former Bush aide David Kuo that the Bush administration basically exploited conservative Christians. Says MSNBC:

He says some of the nation’s most prominent evangelical leaders were known in the office of presidential political strategist Karl Rove as “the nuts.”

“National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ‘ridiculous,’ ‘out of control,’ and just plain ‘goofy,’” Kuo writes.

More seriously, Kuo alleges that then-White House political affairs director Ken Mehlman knowingly participated in a scheme to use the office, and taxpayer funds, to mount ostensibly “nonpartisan” events that were, in reality, designed with the intent of mobilizing religious voters in 20 targeted races.

Wow. For the sake of argument, let's assume that these accusations are true. As I said above, there is no reason to believe them at the moment, but for this post's sake, we will treat them as true.

The troubling thing about this is not so much that Bush played Christians -- he's a politician, this sort of stuff unfortunately happens all the time -- but that the administration is basically using tax dollars to finance its own re-election. Many Republicans may think, "Wait, what's wrong with this? Finally, tax dollars being put to good use."

No. There is no reason for anyone who believes in limited government, democracy, or both to condone this use of government funds. As far as limited government goes, this will assuredly open the door to more abuse (as if the door isn't already wide open). Concerning democracy, a defining feature of democracies is the ability of the opposition party to compete and have a legitimate chance at winning. Will the Republicans do this for their candidate in 2008? What happens if they do and the Democrats still manage to sneak in? Can we really condemn them if they do the same thing?

Right now, Republicans really shouldn't be worried, as not enough is known about these charges. They could be completely bogus. However, I'm just posing these questions to Republicans in case the charges do turn out to be true.

Here's the segment on yesterday's Countdown:



A few things to say about this segment. First: 1) It's Keith Olbermann, so obviously we should be skeptical of whatever he is saying. 2) Notice his feigned offense at the fact that high-ranking Republicans were calling evanglelical leaders "nut"? Think Olbermann probably agrees with them? 3) Is it really possible that Bush has been pretending to be a Christian for this long? If yes, then he's one messed up individual. But, it's probably not the case. 4) Kuo claims to know about the inner workings of his office and how it worked to help the GOP get re-elected in tough races. Unfortunately, he left in 2003. Can we really believe him?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Abortion violence goes far beyond the unborn

I stumbled across a very disturbing and interesting Web site today: abortionviolence.com.

The site details a list of crimes committed by pro-abortion activists, and does a good job of disputing this myth that pro-lifers are the violent ones, perpetuated, of course, by the media (90% of reporters are pro-abortion, so this shouldn't be a surprise). The list is quite long and definitely worth a look. It's scary to see how violent pro-abortion advocates really are.

There's also a video documenting a pro-abortion advocate essentially tackling a pro-life demonstrator, stealing her sign, running away, then swearing uncontrollably when being confronted. If this is indicative of even a small percentage of pro-abortion advocates, it makes one think.



Also, there is a good section on homosexual violence, including three church invasions and a long list of vandalism.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Abortion regrets

So Ms. Magazine is doing their despicable petition for women who have had abortions and don't regret it. Of course, they refuse to listen to stories from the many, many women who regret the fact that they took the life of their innocent child.

I found a very moving piece about a woman who, 30 years ago, decided to have an abortion. She regrets her "choice" to this day:

I remember when I walked into that office many years ago being with four other girls who were just as nervous and scared as I was. They did not look up as I came in the room. I think we did not look each other in the eye for the same reason. We were all going to kill our children that we had growing inside of each of us. These children were conceived at the ‘wrong time’, and we had found a way to fix this "problem." My eyes searched out this room for someone who knew what was going to happen. But no one would look up, so I sat alone again in my thoughts. The sad thing is I was not thinking of this child inside of me, no, only what was going on in the next room and would it take long? Would it hurt? I ignorantly assumed it would be over when I walked out of the door. My problem would be solved. I could go on with my life as if I had never been a girl with a small helpless infant, a child, a human being, my child, my gift from God, inside of me. I could conceal this from my family now, but not from God.

It is an unfortunate reflection of society that a mainstream magazine can glorify the choice of murder made by so many women, and there is so little outcry from the rest of society. I commend every woman who comes forward and says, "I regret my abortion." They have seen the monstrosity of their decision and have repented.

Abortion is an action that not only kills a child, but imprisons women. It is the easy road out. There is no need to take consequence for one's actions if there is not only a Plan B, but a Plan C. This is not empowerment. Because of abortion, men have an even greater temptation to act irresponsibly. There is no reason to be tied down to a woman if at any moment the force that often binds out-of-control couples -- the birth of a child -- is no longer in play. Abortion and contraception have not only not liberated women, they have imprisoned them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Have we been fooled by Bush's Supreme Court nominees?

The Supreme Court has decided not to hear an appeal from Sandra Cano, or "Mary Doe," seeking to to overturn the Doe v. Bolton decision that accompanied Roe v. Wade in 1973.

There are a few important things to consider here:

  • First, what most people already know, is that both Cano and Norma "Jane Roe" McCorvey are pro-life. Both are opposed to the 1973 rulings that legalized the systematic slaughter of innocent children.
  • Second, this is very, very bad news about the Supreme Court. It only takes four Supreme Court votes to grant cert to a case. Working under the assumption that Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito are conservatives, that's enough to force the entire court to hear this issue. Back when the Court rejected McCorvey's plea for an appeal, it wasn't such a big deal because back then it was just Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia. Now, however, conservatives are supposed to have the votes they need. So, there are two possibilities: 1) The four conservatives decided to wait until they had a decisive fifth vote that would ensure that the ruling was actually overturned; 2) Either Roberts, Alito or both are Souter conservatives. That is, one or both are not really conservative at all. I pray that the first possibility is the one that actually happened, but given conservatives' bad record with the high court, I don't see that as very likely.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »