FRC Blog

Bill Gates Takes on Radical Environmentalism

by Rob Schwarzwalder

October 15, 2009

In a speech today at the World Food Prize forum, Microsoft founder Bill Gates took the extreme environmental movement to task for putting rigid ideology ahead of basic human need.

Here’s an excerpt of his comments: “Some people insist on an ideal vision of the environment. They have tried to restrict the spread of biotechnology into sub-Saharan Africa without regard to how much hunger and poverty might be reduced by it, or what the farmers themselves might want.”

Gates noted that the international initiative “to help small farmers” in the developing world “is endangered by an ideological wedge” that pits higher productivity through the use of new agri-technologies and those who speak only of “sustainability,” often a code word for policies that would allow people to die for the sake of perceived environmental “purity.”

The Microsoft chief applauded some things that are anathema to the environmental purists, such as genetically-modified seeds that can increase crop yields and possibly even the nutritional content of such developing world staples as maize and sorghum. Drought-resistant seeds can be used by small farmers throughout Africa to help them feed their families and strengthen their nations’ economies.

One of the world’s wealthiest people, Gates and his foundation have poured an estimated $1.4 billion into combating hunger, malnutrition and disease in places like sub-Saharan Africa. Sadly, Gates is also a supporter of abortion-related “family planning” services in these regions. But he deserves credit both for his commitment to providing sustainable agriculture to the world’s neediest populations and for taking on the radical environmental movement, which would rather see people die than advance dynamic new agriculture technologies that could save millions of lives.

Continue reading

Embryo Fate on the Docket

by David Prentice

October 15, 2009

It was barely reported in the media, but a lawsuit was filed in federal court (Sherley et al. v. Sebelius et al.) on August 19 to reverse the guidelines put out by NIH that open federal funding to more human embryo destruction.

In further developments, a hearing was held Wednesday, October 14 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on a preliminary injunction to block implementation and federal funding under the NIH guidelines. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth listened to oral arguments, and will likely issue a decision by November 1 (in the meantime, NIH has indicated that it will not permit the expenditure of any funds for human embryonic stem cell research before that date.)

Continue reading

D.C. Woman Leaves Baby to Die in Plastic Bag, Gets 13 years

by Cathy Ruse

October 15, 2009

How can anyone ignore the irony in this awful story reported in the Washington Post yesterday?

A young woman walks out into a field with a pink towel, scissors, and a plastic bag, gives birth to a daughter, cuts the umbilical cord and leaves the baby to die.

Of course she could have had an abortionist legally kill the child.

The Supreme Court case of Doe v. Bolton mandates that an abortion be legal even after viability if an abortion doctor cites emotional or familial reasons for the abortion. During a post-arrest interview the woman said she had been raped, and the prosecutor said the woman got rid of the baby because she was afraid the man she was living with, whom she considered her husband, would break up with her for having another mans child. Plenty of legal grounds for a late-term abortion.

Assistant State’s Attorney Renee Battle-Brooks argued that whether she was impregnated because she was raped was irrelevant. That doesn’t make [the baby’s] life any less valuable,” Battle-Brooks said. “That baby struggled for breath in that plastic bag. She was alone, she was cold and she was hungry.”

Last month a 33-year old Rhode Island woman was sentenced to 25 years for killing her newborn daughter.

The baby was found in a plastic garbage bag under a laundry appliance in the womans parents home. Judge Robert Krause of Providence County said, Not to impose a substantial jail sentence … would simply devalue the life of a child. Krause added: No civilized society is prepared to do that and neither am I.

My point in raising these cases is not to argue for criminal penalties for women who have abortions no one in the pro-life movement seeks that but to show the irony in our law, and the striking quotes from those in the legal system as they recognize and defend the humanity of the youngest of babies. They sound so much like pro-lifers. One day, God willing, everyone will speak this way about children, even before birth.

Continue reading

In the Know…

by Krystle Gabele

October 14, 2009

Here’s some interesting articles for your reading enjoyment this morning.

Continue reading

Fighting for EqualityOr Obsessed with Sex?

by Peter Sprigg

October 14, 2009

It seems that homosexual activist groups cant even raise money without using sexual innuendo.

I happen to be on the email list for Equality Maryland, the state homosexual activist organization (its always good to know what the opposition is doing). They are planning to raise money with a Jazz Brunch and Silent Auction on Sunday, October 18 in Baltimore.

But I was startled by the poor taste (and the poor proofreading) of the subject line for an email invitation to this event that I received on September 28. It read: Care to engage is [sic] some Four Play? (The gimmick was that you would get a discount when purchasing four tickets.)

I wondered if they would be embarrassed or get any negative reactionbut apparently not. On October 7, I received a follow-up email with this subject line: Forget Four Play … how about a Threesome? Offering a discount for the purchase of only three tickets this time, the message came complete with a publicity photo from the old Threes Company TV show.

When homosexuals promote their political agenda in the public square, they argue that its not about sex. Its about love, families, equality, justice, etc., etc. They dont want people thinking about two men or two women having sex. (This is why they prefer the term gay rather than homosexual.)

But when talking to each other, the agenda becomes more clear.

Its about sex.

Continue reading

Merrill Peterson: Forging the Links in Libertys Legacy

by Robert Morrison

October 13, 2009

I had the great privilege of studying under Merrill Peterson at the University of Virginia in the 1960s. He was even then regarded as a great national scholar. His first book on Thomas JeffersonThe Jefferson Image in the American Mind— won the prestigious Bancroft Prize in 1960. It was especially important to have a professor of Mr. Petersons stature to speak up for civil rights during that turbulent era. He challenged Mr. Jeffersons University to live out the full meaning of Jeffersons creed. No university in America, or in the world, has a clearer title to speak for that heritage in the present crisis than the University of Virginia, he said in a 1965 speech in Jeffersons Rotunda. But for great men like that, I would never have left my New York home for college in the still-segregated South.

The Washington Post carried a fine tribute to Mr. Peterson. But they appear to swallow whole the story of Jeffersons alleged liaison with his slave, Sally Hemings. He did not believe in any sexual connection between Jefferson and Sally Hemings, said Petersons colleague, Paul Gaston. Gaston described Peterson as distancing himself from that controversy. The Post goes on to repeat the politically correct charge that the evidence became more persuasive in recent years.

What evidence is there and how persuasive is it? DNA testing has revealed that Sally Hemings descendants are related to a male Jefferson. The Jefferson-Hemings family ties are hardly new news. They were first broadcast by James Callender in 1802. Callender was a disappointed office seeker who had once maligned Adams and Hamilton while serving as a clerk in Jeffersons State Department. When President Jefferson would not reward the alcoholic Callender with a higher federal job, he turned his poison pen on his erstwhile sponsor. Soon afterward, he was found dead in a shallow river in Richmond. Apparently, he had fallen into the water in a drunken stupor. Jefferson was clearly wrong to employ such a man. And Abigail Adams was right to rebuke Jefferson. The adder he had cosseted had turned on him and bitten him. Fair enough.

Continue reading

Eleven Days that Shook the World

by Robert Morrison

October 12, 2009

President Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace for 2009. His nomination had to have been entered by February 1st of this year. At that point, as many incredulous pundits have noted, he had been President for just eleven days. Fast work.

Many commentators have ridiculed the choice. Gobsmacked, wrote the Washington Posts serious liberal foreign policy columnist, Jim Hoagland. He employed a British slang term for slack-jawed in utter amazement. Liberal writer Ruth Marcus likened the award to Pee-Wee Soccer, where every child gets a trophy just for playing. The New York Times house conservative, David Brooks, jeered that Obama should have won all of this years prizes, including those for economics and literature. Even for chemistry. After all, Obamas personal chemistry may be his greatest contribution to the world.

Newsweeks Howard Fineman called Obama President of the Earth and said he would accept in Oslo in December. Even long-time Obama promoters were hard-pressed to see the award as anything but miraculous—an effort, perhaps, by the Nobel Prize selection committee—Norwegian Leftists all—to create their own version of the Burning Bush. Saturday Night Live had fun. Their Obama lookalike noted that he had only nine months of experience not being George Bush.

Continue reading

President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize for…funding abortions overseas?

by Cathy Ruse

October 9, 2009

It was announced this morning that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Reuters reports that The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for his

extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation

between peoples.

But this prize was apparently awarded *prospectively*, since the nomination

deadline for the prize came less than two weeks after Obama took office.

So what actions did Obama as President take before the February 1st deadline

that gave the committee such assurance of his future worthiness of the

prize?

On January 20 he called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and

declared his intention to give multiple rights and privileges to homosexual

couples.

On January 22 he issued an order announcing his intention to close

Guantanamo Bay.

On January 23 he issued an order authorizing tax dollars for abortions

abroad.

As Michael Novak wrote in National Review Online at the time: These first

steps were unworthy of a great nation and unworthy of a serious leader.

Mother Teresa called abortion the greatest destroyer of peace. But

according to the Nobel committee, forcing taxpayers to fund it gets you a

peace prize.

Continue reading

In the Know…

by Krystle Gabele

October 7, 2009

Here’s some articles of interest for today.

Continue reading

Archives