 |
| The modern Control Centre at Shanwick. |
 |
| Tools of the Trade.
And down they come. Again, you wait. Watch. Patience is rewards after a minute or two. but speeded up a bit.....
'Tis better than trainspotting.
Then, there is the traffic on the ground. Planes taxi out, take off, land somewhere and taxi in again. The nightmare continues. Take this. It is an actual voice recording overlaid with a simulated visual. Mayhem.
Be kind now, because when controllers die as bad lads they have to do this for eternity. It is Hell.
Pax |
 |
| Sister, Dominique Moceanu. |
Today is the real women’s — and men’s — marchToday I’ll be at the March For Life in DC. I expect it to be different from the march that took over the city last week in a few important ways:
First, there won’t be nearly as many news cameras.
Second, there won’t be any vagina costumes or vagina signs or vagina hats. There won’t be any reproductive organs on display at all, except perhaps by the counter protesters. The participants will be putting their message — not their genitals — forward.Third, the speakers won’t be going on any vulgar or profane tirades. The march will be family friendly.Fourth, there won’t be any discussion of blowing up the White House.Fifth, the marchers will not be demanding any special entitlements. They will not be looking for free birth control, or free tampons, or free anything. They will not be making any personal demands, because this march is not about them. The people who make their voices heard today do so not for their own sake.
They do so for the sake of those who cannot speak for themselves.The march participants stand to gain nothing from this. Their motivations cannot be selfish because their demands are not self-serving. Every single person — hundreds of thousands of them — will be marching in the place of someone else.
The march last week, and so many others of its type, have been made up mostly of people saying, “Do such and such for me. Give me something. Help me. Me. Me. Me.”
But the March For Life is different. The March For Life says, “Do this for them. Give them a chance. Give them their rights. Help them. Them. Them. Them.”And the “them,” of course, are pre-born children. Whereas the people at the so-called Women’s March said, “Forget them, let them die,” we at the March For Life say, “Remember them, let them live.”
These are the two competing points of view.
Here is the great dividing line in our culture.
The question is asked and must be answered: “Should these children be given a chance to live or not?” How you answer that question will determine on which side of the line you belong.
Our culture has answered with a cruel and callous “no” for the past 40 years. The so-called Women’s March echoed that answer.
The feminist movement, liberalism, the media, the Democratic Party, academia — all of these powerful forces join together in shouting “no.” No, give them no chance. Give them nothing. Take everything from them. Take their dignity. Take their rights. Take their lives. And when they are dead, take some more. Take their limbs, their livers, their brains, their hearts, carve them up and make use of the pieces. Take it all. They are nothing to us. They are insects. They are lower than insects because we would sooner acknowledge the life of an insect than the life of this “clump of cells.” They are dirt. Let them die, then. Pick apart their carcasses and throw the rest in the dumpster. This is the answer the pro-aborts shout proudly from the rooftops.
Well, today in Washington DC a great many people will gather to deliver a different answer.There were so many articles written over the past few days explaining “Why They Marched” at the so-called Women’s March, and all of the explanations danced clumsily and unconvincingly around the fact that, when it came down to it, they marched in order to continue the mass slaughter of innocent human beings. Whatever else they claimed, that is really why they marched.So, here is why we march. And this, the sixth point of differentiation, is the most important. We march to answer “yes.” Yes, every child should be given a chance to live. Yes, we affirm the sanctity of life at every stage. Yes, a child is entitled to live the life God gave him. Yes, he is, according to our country’s own founding documents, endowed by God with an inherent dignity that no one on Earth — not even his own parents — can deny him.We march because we believe it’s better to give life than take it. A child’s existence may indeed require sacrifice on our part, but that does not give us the right to dispose of her like old scrap metal. We whine so much about our own “rights” but we forget that rights and responsibilities come inextricably linked. Our children have the right to live — a right granted by God, not by any man — and so it our responsibility to care for them; to give them our time, our energy, our money, our love. A civilized society recognizes this obligation and enforces it by law.If I bring a child into this world — and once they have been conceived, they are, by any definition, “in the world” — it is my fundamental duty to tend to her and to make whatever sacrifices that entails. If I cannot or will not, then I’m obliged to find someone who will. A decent, humane country does not consider murder to be an acceptable third alternative. You don’t get to kill people because their existence interferes with your own. This is perhaps the most basic and fundamental moral principle known to man. Or previously known to man, anyway.We march because life is good. We march because children are precious. We march because truth is truth. We march because love is infinitely preferable to cold, murderous indifference. We march because one slaughtered child is a travesty; fifty million slaughtered children add up to the greatest human rights crisis in the history of the human race. We march because what is the point of a march if not to call attention to injustice — and what is injustice if the genocide of the pre-born does not qualify? We march because it is our duty to do so.And that’s why today is the real Women’s March and the real Men’s March. The men and women who march today are embracing their own purpose. Women are supposed to be pro-life. It’s in their nature. A pro-life woman is a woman who sees the power and beauty in the fact that she is able to bring forth life into the universe. For a woman to run from that power, to lash out against it violently, is for her to run from herself. A pro-life woman does not run from it. She appreciates and loves her own womanhood. She has compassion and empathy for those who are defenseless and vulnerable, especially children. A pro-life woman is moved by her love for others.
Likewise, a man is meant to be pro-life. It’s ingrained in us. A pro-life man is a man who stands in awe of a woman’s capacity to bring forth life, and harbors a deep sense of appreciation and respect for his own indispensable role in that process. A man who sits back idly while children are murdered and their mothers are sent plunging into a whirlwind of regret and despair is no man at all. A man protects. A man gives. A man provides. A man fights for those who cannot fight for themselves. A man who rejects this duty, even to the point of murder, does not deserve to call himself a man. He is an embarrassment and a disgrace. A pro-life man, however, heeds the call and stays true to his own nature.So, today is the real Women’s March.
And the real Men’s March.
And the Children’s March.
The Father’s March.
The Mother’s March.
The American March.
The People’s March.
Matt earned applause and free pints for the rest of the day. As did Dave Andrusko who was briefer but showed exactly what Abortion has done to the USA. Graphically.Or you can just call it by its original, and very appropriate, name: the March For Life.
Pro-lifers are nothing if not creative. Over the decades, they have produced thousands upon thousands of “visual aids,” from the simplest black and white one-sheeter to full-blown movies—and everything in-between.
The common denominator is—to adapt a cliché—to help the public get its collective head around both the humanity we share with the unborn child and the sheer magnitude of the loss of lives since January 22, 1973.
Although I scribble for a living, I really do believe a picture–or in this a case a 4 ½ minute long video–is worth a thousand words.
Gayle Atteberry, executive director of Oregon Right to Life, tells me the video below opened the 2017 Rally for Life in Portland, Oregon. Take the time to watch it right now.
Even the Pope has very disappointedly - and dare I say hypocritically (as the Vatican has a massive wall) - condemned the wall.
 | ||
| See the Trump hair Orange line? It is the lit-up border fence seen from the Space Station !!
Still he can afford it. With $221 million clawed back from the Palestinian terrorists added to the $ half a Billion no longer funding the killing of American babies every year, it should be a doddle. He just has to back-up his Executive Order with a bit of Congressional acquiescemce.
And guess what. He has that in hand. Congress already voted the money, a long time ago. In fact some very odd people voted for it as the ladies explained.
http://www.chicksontheright.com/check-out-which-democrats-voted-for-a-wall-along-the-southern-border-back-in-2006/Check Out Which DEMOCRATS Voted For A Wall Along The Southern Border Back In 2006
But the funny thing is that, according to this, a fairly prominent Democrats actually voted for a border fence back in 2006, similar to the one that President Trump is proposing.
President Donald Trump will be able to order the construction of a wall on the Mexico border Wednesday with the stroke of a pen, because of a 2006 law passed with the help of Democrats including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Many of them are still in Congress, including newly-established Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.  There are also a number of Democrat representatives still in the House who voted for the bill: Sanford Bishop (GA), Corrine Brown (FL), Michael Capuano (MA), Jim Cooper (TN), Jim Costa (CA), Peter DeFazio (OR), Steve Israel (NY), Ron Kind (WI), Daniel Lipinski (IL), Stephen Lynch (MA), Carolyn Maloney (NY), Bill Pascrell Jr. (NJ), Collin Peterson (MN), C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (MD), Tim Ryan (OH), and Adam Smith (WA). Or are we just supposed to ignore everything Democrats have done before this very second that we’re standing in? I notice that Dems don’t really like it when you bring up their sordid past (slavery, denying women the vote, Jim Crow, segregation, etc.) – always insisting that they’ve “changed” from that version of the Democrat Party.
The chicks scored free drinks for the rest of the evening.
Pax
|
They refuse to define people by their genitals, but knit vagina hats. 
The rioters smashed windows - of Clinton Campaign donors - and set fire to a limo that turned out to belong - on hire purchase - to a muslim immigrant who was not only dragged out and given a whacking but left with a $70,000 debt to pay off on the burned-out wreck.
Some Women Are More Equal Than Others
The Women's March doesn't actually include all women.
On Saturday, gaggles of anti-Trump feminists will descend on Washington to protest The Donald’s presidency. The Women’s March on Washington claims to “stand together in solidarity with our partners and children for the protection of our rights, our safety, our health, and our families — recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country.”
How curious, then, that march organizers disqualified from sponsoring the event a feminist organization whose founder is on record calling Donald Trump “a greedy, narcissistic, misogynistic, adulterer; a corporate mogul (who brags about not being able to be bought, but conveniently leaves out that he’s usually the one buying); a Godless, brainless reality TV star.”
Why the rejection?
 |
| 'Reproductive freedom or reproductive justice means that women decide the fate of our own bodies,' Gloria Steinem, an honorary co-chairwoman of the Women's March told the Times. The problem remains that it is someone else's body they kill. The Baby's. |
Turns out the organization in question — New Wave Feminists (NWF) — is pro-life, and we all know that’s an unforgivable sin on the Left.
So when rabid pro-abortionists got wind that NWF was listed among event sponsors, they did what ultra-Leftist women do best: throw a fit.
As one woman hysterically tweeted, “Intersectional feminism does not include a pro-life agenda. That’s not how it works! [Insert pouty face and foot-stomping here.] The right to choose is a fundamental part of feminism.”
Unless you choose to be pro-life, that is.
Apparently, solidarity applies only if you support dismembering live babies and selling their body parts for profit. And diversity can go no further than choosing between D&E or suction abortions.
Quickly backtracking from any semblance of open-mindedness, the Women’s March issued a statement apologizing for the “error” and confirming that unless you favor killing babies, your diverse feminism is simply not identical enough to Planned Parenthood’s to be welcome. No free thinkers allowed. After all, the march takes place the day before the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
 |
| The innane grin of the loon |
Oh do come along Destiny. You are a feminist. You know what feminists are and what they are like.
Responding to the rejection, NWF founder Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa stated, “It appears that the [Women’s March on Washington] only wants to include a ‘diverse’ array of women who think exactly like them. That’s unfortunate, but we will not be deterred.” Despite being removed as a sponsor, the group will still march.
Wonderful how it is always termed 'reproductive rights' when there has been absolutely no question about 'reproducing'. It is a better mantra though than 'Kill your Baby'.As will And Then There Were None (ATTWN), another pro-life group that received a similar rejection after first being approved as an event sponsor. You may recognize ATTWN founder Abby Johnson as the former Planned Parenthood director who left the abortion industry in 2009. Johnson shares on Facebook that after ATTWN applied to be an event partner, she received a phone call from a woman informing her that the application was rejected because all partners “must be supportive of women’s reproductive rights.”
Johnson explains: “I told her that wasn’t a problem because we absolutely support reproductive rights, as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of individual human beings in the womb. I guess she didn’t like that, so she just repeated that we could not be a partner. … I finally asked, ‘So is this a pro-abortion March now?’ She hung up.”
Oddly, later that day ATTWN was approved and listed as an event sponsor — only to be disqualified once again later.
Of course, this hardly comes as a surprise. Groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL have hijacked the word “feminism” — and are even trying to hijack the word “women” — to advance their infant-dismemberment business. As The Federalist’s Joy Pullman notes, “[Feminist Susan B.] Anthony’s legacy has become largely a cover for people who profit from killing other humans and selling their dissected body parts for profit. So much for human rights. …
The Prof, JJ Ray sat quietly supping on his drink. He put it down to say a few words. Everyone listens to JJ. He pointed to The Most Salient Fact about Feminism and the Left.[T]he decline in women identifying themselves as feminists has directly coincided with leading feminists' defenestration of pro-life women to obsess almost exclusively over abortion. Making abortion the core of the women’s rights movement isn’t helping.”
Indeed, nearly 40% of women believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center. With 40% of women unwelcome, Saturday’s event can hardly be called a “Women’s March.”
Turns out that to abortion-fixated females, equality looks good on paper. But when it comes to reality, they believe some women are more equal than others.
Children are a joy and a great delight -- but not so much for feministsThat a woman of no great physical strength will fight like a lion to protect her children tells you something about the bond that forms between normal parents and their children. So much so that a lot of parents are embarrassed by it. When asked about child rearing, a mother will often stress the negatives rather than confess the great happiness that children bring. Children give the happiness that drug users seek but do not find. Foolish people frantically seek pleasures in all sorts of places when the key to happiness is right under their noses: children.But children are a burden, too, right? They can be. A single mother bringing up children by herself has to be unusually capable and resourceful to come through the experience well. But single mothers are well outside what humans have evolved for. For almost as long as we have been human, a mother was surrounded by helpful others: a husband plus two sets of grandparents.A husband took away much of the need to work so doing things with the children could be a fairly relaxed affair. And whenever a mother needed time out -- to work or unwind, there were as many as four grandparents to help out with the childminding.
Often the grandparents did more of the child-rearing than the mother did. As a child, my son spent more of the day with his Nanna than with any other family member. And I won't mention aunts, uncles, siblings and cousins. To this day, they often help out too.And the scenario I have described still actually exists in most of the world and is not uncommon even in "modern" societies.But some "independent" people in their wisdom think they can do without all that.
Their values are quite simply unwise. And to them children can be a great stress and a burden. They make out of their greatest happiness their greatest burden. They find that "independence" is not all it is cracked up to be.
Independence and support are basically opposites. Anybody reading this might do well to think for a little while about whether their various connections with others could be strengthened.And one of the greatest sources of the independence folly are feminists.
Contrary to all human experience, they even preach that men and women don't need one-another. So some women are misled into missing out on children altogether. Biology being what is is, however, most feminists do seem in the end to have a child or two. And that's where the "fun" starts.
The "sisterhood" turns out to be surprisingly unhelpful to the mother concerned.
They may even scorn the mother concerned and call her a "breeder", a term of great contempt for them. Children are just not their bag.If there is a man consistently in the mother's life, that can be a big help but may not be. A strong bond between a man and a feminist is inherently unlikely. So when children arrive the man may run, or at least distance himself. So a feminist mother will generally be stuck in the stressful single mother scenario. Her only salvation from that will be that she has retained enough connections with her parents for them to help. But she will still be more burdened that she would have been in a traditional relationship.
Traditional relationships are wise.
Traditionally too, the money a man earns goes to support his wife and children, their food, clothing, heating, lighting, education, health..... the list goes on. Women who 'earn' have not moved anywhere near as close to the male paradigm of providing for another mature adult. - her husband.They will of course have some conflicts but they are what has evolved to fit us best. They are traditional because they do fit what we are. But these days a lot of mothers don't even have a husband so they haven't even got their foot on the first rung of the ladder.Why are they so foolish? Again, feminism is a big part of the blame. Feminists fill women's heads with lies such as women can "have it all" and even deceive women about how desirable "all" is. They fill women's heads with fantasies about how wonderful is this "career" that men have.They fail to mention that a man enters onto a career as simply the best way to make money, not to achieve honour and glory. And they fail to mention that a career entails spending the best part of most of your day in the company of people you don't particularly like and whom you would not seek out. Sometimes you may get good feelings out of your career but all you usually get for all the stresses you endure is money. And many men would gladly throw it all away if they could reasonably do so.
 |
| What sort of mother has her child hold such a sign? |
* A woman has three boys in close succession, and being a kindly soul, she gave her boys toys that they chose. She had however heard feminist ravings so wondered if they would like a dolly. So she gave them one. They promptly ripped it legs off, pulled its eyes out and threw it in a corner. They decisively educated her about male/female differences. She herself had a doll from her childhood which she greatly treasured. In a traditional society men fought the battles and women minded the children. And that is now genetically encoded.
* I was at a party where there was a 4-year-old boy. I was talking to him about his toys and said to him, "Boys have trucks and girls have dolls, don't they? He promptly nodded.
But a more "modern" man nearby then said to the boy, "But boys sometimes have dolls too, don't they?" The boy's reply was eloquent.
Perhaps she can find an exotic male. A 'bad-boy' one with a rap record: A transgender one; or a gay one (so like a woman, you see: they can 'understand' !!); or non-white one who shares her 'lack of privilege'; or a Muslim perhaps.He simply said "AAARGH!".And if the feminist mother bans her boy from having toy guns, he will simply imagine one into existence using a stick or something else as a prop. So her boy will almost certainly disabuse a feminist mother of claims that males and females are born with no basic differences.It probably eventually occurs to a woman who has been "woke" out of feminist fantasies that maybe a husband might be a good idea after all. But finding one at that juncture will make what is always a difficult task very difficult indeed.
 |
| Stupid is what stupid does. |
...and these are the opening shots. The proponents are sick. Their ethos is anti-life. Their modus operandi is to destroy.The effort that is needed to retain and maintain an orderly civil society is far greater than most imagine. The talk in the bar last evening left even me wondering and scanning the horizons.
Very few are even aware that a civil war is likely, until belief in one is shoved down their street. Many nations have 'experienced' one in their history and few have escaped unscathed. Why on earth imagine that western democracies are exempt?
