Mar 16
Family prevails. And the video of it goes viral.
Sorry if you’ve seen this dozens and dozens of times. I posted it on my personal Facebook page as soon as I saw it last week, and stopped laughing long enough to “share” and add a personal note. Since then, so many media folks with a big following in social media have shared it as well, adding their personal comments to the tweet or post or other commentary, it’s grown into a phenomenon of the moment. And one with a message.

Mollie Hemingway does the best job of capturing what happened here.

The setup:

This morning the BBC interviewed Dr. Robert Kelly, an associate professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science and Diplomacy at Pusan National University in South Korea. The topic of the interview — the impeachment of Korean President Park Geun-hye — was interesting. But Kelly’s children stole the show.

It has to be watched first, then read about. Hemingway’s Federalist piece puts our universally shared reaction to this spontaneous moment in context.

She lists the 8 (updated from 7 initial) best things about the children taking all the attention from Dad during his BBC interview. There was a ‘marching toddler’ and a ‘rolling baby’, and viewers had their favorites. One tweeted

Enter every room like the kid who interrupts the BBC Skype interview.

Another

Y’all, the baby rolling in got me crying.

I actually laughed to that point of tears. Hearty, knowing, laughter.

Here’s another happy tweet

I legit can’t stop watching this.

Then there’s the mom who realizes what’s happening in real time, and she comes tearing around the doorway into the room, ducking to avoid the camera (or so she thinks) and grab the kids, and we can’t help but laugh with them, to the point of tears.

Mollie Hemingway and her husband frequently do media interviews and manage their family life at the same time.

By the time the mom rushes into the room, realizing the kids have gone rogue during their dad’s very important interview, the comedic value is unquestioned. She goes low — and speaking as someone who does these types of interviews and who is married to someone who does Skype interviews, I can assure you this is a natural instinct.

…having been interrupted by the chaos of life while on air, I know how stressful it is for children to enter the scene. I have never handled it as well as this guy, who keeps his composure as he tries to signal to his toddler to get out of the room. But he’s also totally laughing it off.

Which is refreshing, when we see the utter humanity of happy family chaos break in on structured, managed and reasonably controlled circumstances.

Television is so well-produced that we rarely see real life interrupt our broadcasts. When the toddler walks in, the interviewer is forced to acknowledge this, breaking down the wall we normally preserve between work and home life.

Or at least the perception of it. When one lives in their office and works in their home, this can happen. For all of us who do that, this provided huge comic relief.

The Wall Street Journal was among the major world media whose follow up coverage outdid the initial intended interview.

The buzz has even overshadowed the major news Mr. Kelly was on air to discuss: the impeachment of South Korea’s president.

“It’s a comedy of errors,” Mr. Kelly said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

He also said he and his wife “immediately feared the worst, assuming that he wouldn’t be contacted again to appear on TV.” This is easy to picture:

“We said to each other, ‘Wow, what just happened?’ ” Mr. Kelly, said, adding the blame was entirely on him for not locking the door….

“I made this minor mistake that turned my family into YouTube stars. It’s pretty ridiculous,” he said.

That’s right.

He immediately wrote to the BBC to apologize, but within 15 minutes the broadcaster asked if it could put a clip of the interview on the internet. The couple initially declined, feeling uncomfortable that people might laugh at their children. But they were eventually persuaded that the video would show they were just a regular family.

Within a couple of hours, it became clear to them that the video would disrupt their lives…

Yes, that’s because it “had been viewed over 84 million times on the BBC Facebook page as of Tuesday morning U.S. time. It has been covered by media from Uruguay to Nigeria to Australia, and dissected in thousands of news articles and social media posts around the world. Many have expressed warm feelings toward the family…”

Proving that this brief sequence of events in the life of a family doing what they do in their routine at home, spontaneous chaos and all, brought us together in ways punditry and social science brilliance never could.

Watch both videos, the one on The Federalist site, and aftermath family discussion with the Wall Street Journal here. They’re so human, so endearing.

Mr. Kelly describes his reaction (to the initial disruption) as a mixture of surprise, embarrassment and amusement but also love and affection. The couple says they weren’t mad and didn’t scold the children. “I mean it was terribly cute,” Mr. Kelly said. “I saw the video like everybody else. My wife did a great job cleaning up a really unanticipated situation as best she possibly could… It was funny. If you watch the tape I was sort of struggling to keep my own laughs down. They’re little kids and that’s how things are.”

The otherwise cool, calm, collected Dad laughs and says “This is my life, man!”

This is a life more of us can relate to, exactly, as we ‘do media’ in setting where family, or pets, or neighbors pets or lawn mowers or snowblowers just outside the door or window can cause significant distraction or interruption.

But that’s what made this more than another foreign affairs interview on a global network covering so many stories of the moment, we can’t keep up so most people don’t even try. This interview was supposed to be about the impeachment of South Korea’s president. But wound up in the Wall Street Journal as this: “When the Children Crash Dad’s BBC Interview: The Family Speaks”.

And that’s what the world needs to hear. And see.

Tagged with:
Mar 16

And a proudly progressive mom calls for a reality check.

After opening the blog post she felt necessary to write by saying that she was reluctant to write it, as a tolerant person who would likely be labeled and derided as intolerant, ‘The Get Real Mom’ stated clearly: “This is a story about a biological man in the women’s restroom.”

Innate sensibility prevailed when a startled young mother was disturbed enough by her own experience at a Disneyland women’s restroom when a man walked in, and stayed, while women and children nervously looked for someone to say or do something. But…not…them.

First, she felt the need to establish liberal bona fides.

I’ve lived in Los Angeles for over a decade and have seen my fair share of transgender/gender fluid people. They in no way offend me. I’d consider myself pretty progressive and tolerant of most things…how transgender people feel, how they choose to dress or any surgeries they get, don’t infringe on any parts of my life, so I support their decision to live as they see fit. I’ve also seen my fair share of transgender women in the women’s restroom before. Not ALL the time. But over the past few years, I’d say 4-5 that I noticed. Men…who were in some stage of transition and making every attempt to be a woman from mascara to heels. Transgenders who certainly felt comfortable in the women’s room and probably frightened to go into the men’s. At these times, I smiled…I peed…and life went on. But 2 weeks ago something very different happened.

She and her friend took their young sons to the park for an outing, stopped for lunch and headed for the women’s restroom before the next adventure. They took turns, each watching the children for the other.

I was off to the side waiting with the two boys, when I noticed a man walk into the restroom…He took a few more steps, at which point he would’ve definitely noticed all the women lined up and still kept walking. My next thought was, “Maybe he’s looking for his wife…or child and they’ve been in here a while.” But he didn’t call out any names or look around. He just stood off to the side and leaned up against the wall. At this point I’m like, “…Am I the only one seeing this?” I surveyed the room and saw roughly 12 women, children in tow…staring at him with the exact same look on their faces. Everyone was visibly uncomfortable. We were all trading looks and motioning our eyes over to him…like “what is he doing in here?” Yet every single one of us was silent. And this is the reason I wrote this blog.

Somebody has to be willing to speak up, and they were all afraid. She realized that reality, as one who had been among the unwilling to be considered judgmental, or to call any behavior or boundary crossing wrong. Until clearly it was.

We had been culturally bullied into silenced. Women were mid-changing their baby’s diapers on the changing tables and I could see them shifting to block his view. But they remained silent. I stayed silent. We all did. Every woman who exited a stall and immediately zeroed right in on him…said nothing. And why? B/c I…and I’m sure all the others were scared of that “what if”. What if I say something and he says he “identifies as a woman” and then I come off as the intolerant ass… at the happiest place on earth? So we all stood there, shifting in our uncomfortableness…trading looks. I saw two women leave the line with their children. Still nothing was said. An older lady said to me outloud, “What is he doing in here?” I’m ashamed to admit I silently shrugged and mouthed, “I don’t know.” She immediately walked out…from a bathroom she had every right to use without fear.

This was more than a dawning awareness. It was sudden. “I’m ashamed to admit I silently shrugged…” shows the revelation this woman had in that moment that ‘the culture’ has ‘bullied us into silence’, but we still have our sensibilities, and they come alive in a moment when visceral reaction tells us what’s wrong is wrong, no matter what anybody calls it.

And let me be clear, my problem wasn’t JUST that there was a man in the restroom. Its that he wasn’t even peeing, washing his hands or doing anything else that you’d do in a restroom. He was just standing off to the side looking smug…untouchable… doing absolutely nothing. He had to of noticed that every woman in the long line was staring at him. He didn’t care. He then did a lap around the restroom walking by all the stalls. You know, the stalls that have 1 inch gaps by all the doors hinges so you can most definitely see everyone…

So yes… there were women and small children using the restroom and this man was walking around knowing no one would say anything.  So here I am…writing this blog, because honestly I need answers. We can’t leave this situation ambiguous any more. The gender debate needs to be addressed… and quickly. There have to be guidelines. It can’t just be a feeling… this notion that we’re shamed into silence b/c we might offend someone, has gone too far.

There are answers. People, experts and organizations and rights groups, have been engaging this debate for a long time, and she’s right in calling out those who have been trying to bully them and everyone into silence about saying what is true and right and good, and what is wrong.

There was a man who felt entitled to be in the woman restroom, because he knew no one would say anything. There were 20-25 people by the time I left, who were scared and uncomfortable by his ominous presence. And the only thing stopping us, was our fear of political correctness and that the media has told us we don’t know what gender is anymore. I never want to be in the position again. Im not asking for permission to tell transgender people to get out my bathroom. I need to know it’s ok to tell a man, who looks like a man, to get…out. Gender just can’t be a feeling. There has to be science to it. DNA, genitals, amount of Sephora make up on your face, pick your poison, but as a very progressive woman…I’m sorry it can’t just be a feeling when theres but a mere suggestion of a door with a peep hole separating your eyes from my…or my children’s genitals.

There is science to it. Here’s an exceptionally good and thorough report in The New Atlantis for anyone who didn’t encounter it before, and is willing to now, like ‘The Get Real Mom’. We don’t need to listen to or obey the media, or the culture, or prevailing forces in politically driven movements. We don’t need permission to tell a man hanging out in the women’s room to leave. It’s not about feelings. It’s about human truths and dignity, and the courage to stand for them.

Tagged with:
Mar 10

It can never happen in the real world.

Women do it all, with seemingly more arms and legs and eyes and heart than the human body visibly reveals, more depth and emotion and intellect and drive and seems humanly possible. ‘That’s no brag, just fact’ goes a longtime folk saying. In fact, women not only don’t tend to brag, they don’t tend to realize the enormity of their value to the world and the individuals in their one on one relationships they have as daughters, sisters, friends, wives, mothers.

So when International Women’s Day came around on March 8th, planners of the largest, most publicized event in the US to mark the occasion made it a strike, to protest oppression, inequality, ‘reproductive rights’, defunding of Planned Parenthood, Donald Trump. Instead of being a day to celebrate and stand proudly for something, those organizers made it a protest against many things and people. They missed a big opportunity. And a lot of points about what really helps women and doesn’t hurt, or eliminate, them.

Here’s how it appeared to a lot of Americans otherwise occupied with daily work and concerns, women ‘going on strike to highlight their clout’. It was a strike carried out on social media to show the lengths to which they would go to spread their message. ”Many of our national organizers have been arrested in an act of civil disobedience. We will not be silent.”

Who was trying to silence them? What did they stand for instead of against? What is ‘reproductive justice’? Who was minding the children while moms were taking ‘a day off’ of work and shopping and home life, to be out in the streets? Were there no women manning Planned Parenthood clinics, or did they find that work too necessary for women’t ‘empowerment’? What did they say about the school districts that cancelled classes for lack of teachers, causing working single moms to scramble for childcare? Where did the lower income children who relied on school meals for their nutrition go when their schools closed because of the strike?

Are we more enlightened and encouraged now, or less? Since there’s a day set aside for the global recognition of the unique role and contribution of women in history, culture and society, how can we make the most and the best of that opportunity? The initiative raised more questions than it answered.

But some women have considered and answered these and other questions, and did us all a favor by their reflections.

Like Margot Cleveland’s Federalist piece about the millions of women the world would do without, not for a day but forever, because of enabling ideologies instead of protecting women.

And Pia de Solenni’s Crux piece about proudly being at work that day, representing the finest in women’s achievements and nobly holding to her responsibilities to serve an important role.

The contrast between the trailblazing women mathematicians chronicled in [the film] Hidden Figures and the women leading [Wednesday's] protest, A Day Without Women, leaves me stunned. For generations, even centuries, women have sought equality in all aspects of life. Women in the U.S., where the present protest originates, enjoy rights and opportunities of which women in many parts of the world can scarcely dream.

It seems paradoxical, not to mention confusing, that women would absent themselves from paid work when it’s only recently in human history that so many of us can enjoy these opportunities.

Furthermore, she continues

As women, we have specific responsibilities whatever our states in life. Now we’re being asked to cast them aside, no matter how hard we’ve fought for them.

This sends a conflicting message. The organizers of this protest are saying to the world that women can’t be counted upon. They’re telling our male colleagues (paid and unpaid) that women won’t have their backs on this one day. In many ways, they’re reinforcing what I had hoped were unfair stereotypes.

I can’t even begin to imagine the women mathematicians from Hidden Figures deciding to stay home. They worked hard and made many sacrifices. In fact, they saw themselves advancing the cause of black Americans by showing up and doing work that most Americans, regardless of skin color or sex, couldn’t do. Not showing up for the job wasn’t part of the equation.

There’s more to this protest. For some, it’s a way to signal grievances against the current U.S. President, even though women voted for him. For others, it’s a slightly veiled demonstration to support abortion. All of these women have the right to express themselves and to protest.

But they don’t represent all women, and that’s the challenge for any women’s movement. It has to be diverse enough to include most women. That’s where this protest fails miserably.

Exactly. I’m a proud member of Women Speak for Themselves because of their intellectual honesty, their breadth and depth, their reach and grasp, their efforts to build up a grassroots movement of women across America who will be informed and get engaged at the local level to help communities find and build on resources to serve women, children, families and the social fabric that holds us together. It’s a group that says it’s not “pro-woman” to model outfits and images that reduce women to their bodies and think that’s a good idea. And says ‘No Melinda Gates, it’s not pro-woman to put contraception at the center of a woman’s agenda; its health effects on women and its broader harms to male-female relations and the sexual marketplace are too well-documented.’

This letter from a mother to her daughters, sincere and personal, bespeaks the ‘feminine genius’ John Paul II so eloquently wrote of, encouraging women to embrace a new feminism.

Being fully present, by listening, feeling, empathizing—always holding serious eye contact, and often the touch of a hand—builds trust. Trust builds confidence and confidence enables you to look forward, dream more and focus on others vs. yourself. Being present is the greatest gift you can give another person, and the greatest way to more closely connect with them. When you are present, you are living in the moment vs in your mind. You are seeing, hearing, and feeling another person, and together you are even more empowered to do great things. This is a gift that often comes more naturally to women.

This is true, and it is beautiful.

On International Women’s Day, I attended an event that brought together a wide cross-section of women and men of diverse demographics, backgrounds, age and experience, and I learned so much from the encounters there, brief as those couple of hours were, before heading back to my office and studio for a live radio show, half of which focused on comprehensive health care for women and their families, the health risks of birth control, and fertility awareness and how federal dollars could best serve women in community health centers.

At the event, one of the Little Sisters of the Poor engaged me in conversation, with the joy each and all of them embody, talking about the work they do to care for the elderly, sick and dying patients they love and enjoy serving. These are women who don’t want to, or have the luxury to, take a day off. Taking ‘a day without a woman’ and leaving their patients and residents without a Sister to care for them is unimaginable.

Women are never ‘off’, and are at their happiest with those they love and serve and share a relationship with, whether in family or social circle. The mother’s letter to her daughters urged this:

You are fully aware of how blessed you are, the incredible gifts you were born with that your brother doesn’t have and the gifts he has that you don’t possess. You know how happy you feel when you are doing what you love and that comes so easily and naturally to you.

Feminism and femininity go together when rightly ordered and embraced. There really is a complementarity of the sexes, this mother is helping her daughters understand the natural beauty of that phenomenon. And ultimately, “your family is your foundation, and also your greatest enabler. When it comes to your family, we should be with you everywhere you are, as you are always and forever with us.”

That mother embodies the feminine genius. And she does her daughters, and her son, a great, lifelong, never-ending service by imbuing them with such wisdom that transcends the ages.

Tagged with:
Mar 06

New policy must take care to avoid humanitarian crises.

In my work as a journalist, I try to personalize what is otherwise an ‘issue’ and apply universal principles of human rights to policies that impact human lives. That’s the case for many national and global news stories, breaking and current or ongoing.

When President Donald Trump issued the Executive Order on immigration and refugees on January 27th, it became personal for me and my extended family. For the past three years, my cousins living and working in Asia have worked personally and extensively to help three Iranian converts to Christianity navigate the complex, multi-layered, involved process of applying for visas to come to America and freedom from harassment in the Asian country they were in, and a worse fate in the country they were from, if deported back. They were weeks away from arriving in the US when the Executive Order came down, and alarmingly put the brakes on their case and fate, along with so many countless others.

For more than three years, they’ve gone through ‘extreme vetting’ by international entities and US governmental ones, involving many interviews and background checks, clearing many hurdles and finally anticipated receiving their travel date to the US, with an agency and sponsors in America preparing to receive them and help them resettle here. The three had become four, as the young 24 year old woman we’ll call Nina was pregnant and due to deliver her daughter in early May. The clock was ticking for getting out of a danger zone for them all, especially with Nina’s ability to travel soon diminishing.

After family on two other continents did all they could with international agencies and diplomatic assistance, I got engaged after that Executive Order was issued. Our elected Members of Congress are there for the people, and I turned to them. Providing two House of Representative members dossiers on the three refugees, and a thorough timeline of events that included case numbers for each international agency and US government department involved, the two Congressmen – one Democrat and one Republican, both Catholic, pro-life, advocates for religious freedom and humanitarian relief – said they would do what they could. Enough said.

Within days, the three received papers of clearance, with a travel date and itinerary, and instructions to carry out the process of departing for America, and where they would go on arrival, cared for by a family agency and our family sponsors. Because their flight would first touch down on American soil in my hometown of Chicago, I was able to be at the airport’s international terminal to greet them as they came through the doors after clearing Customs and Immigration, and it was a profound experience, to welcome four refugees to America, the youngest not yet able to hold, to look into her eyes and say ‘welcome’, though she’s the one who will be born a US citizen.

They came so close to not making it here, they were on the edge of despair, starting to think of what other options they may still have on a closing window of opportunity, maybe needing to go elsewhere if that were even possible, when the Executive Order restraining order was upheld in the Ninth Circuit Court, and everything went back to the drawing board.

So many people in so many families across the globe have similar stories of those days, with different US Representatives intervening on their behalf for good reason. Two other Congressmen talked with me on radio about our need to help foreign nationals who served US forces as translators come to America and bring their families, as a matter of duty and honor and service.

A new Executive Order is imminent, and may have been issued by the time readers see this. It needs to be considerably better than the one on January 27th. As my esteemed friend and radio guest Robert P. George stated in this First Things article on this policy process:

There is an enormous amount of confusion about the EO. President Trump bears much responsibility for the confusion, and his critics bear some of it. In my opinion, the EO was not necessary and therefore should not have been issued…A significant part of the reason is that we already have “extreme vetting” of refugees. In this important respect, we are quite unlike many European nations. Of course, most Americans don’t know this. So they fear that what has happened in some places in Europe could happen here. I myself only learned about the stringency of our refugee vetting procedures as a result of extensive briefing when I was chairing the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). There are many things in our government that are “broken,” but our refugee vetting system isn’t one of them.

In the case of the three refugees I welcomed to America, I can vouch for that. Their process was long and thorough, their paperwork and case files extensive. When they came through those doors an agent of the International Organization for Migration accompanied them until we saw each other and I rushed to greet them. He let us have the several hours of their layover together, to talk, have some refreshment in an airport cafe, quiet time in the terminal lounge, and their first hours of their new life in a ‘soft landing’ as my family abroad put it, the one who started helping them on this long journey. His wife was at their final destination to welcome them there and take them to the place arranged by the family services agency.

This is one case of three very vulnerable, courageous human beings, the fourth and most vulnerable of all was the child in Nina’s womb. But our joy in embracing each other as now ‘extended family’, was one profound story that personalized the issue of ‘refugees’, and our vetting process already in place served everyone well.

Tagged with:
Feb 20

She founded ‘Roe No More’ two decades ago to expose abortion lies.

Just last month, two major marches in Washington DC drew hundreds of thousands of Americans to public demonstrations on both sides of the four decade long battle over the ‘right to abortion’ on demand legalized by the infamous Supreme Court Roe decision. It’s probably safe to say that the vast majority of activists on both sides don’t know who or what Roe was.

Norma McCorvey was the woman named Jane Roe in a 1969 Texas court case challenging that state’s abortion law, a case that went to the Supreme Court as the vehicle to overturn all US state laws in 1973 and ensconce abortion as a right. But McCorvey wasn’t all that involved in the case as even this New York Times article admits.

McCorvey, five months pregnant with her third child, signed an affidavit she claimed she did not read. She just wanted a quick abortion and had no inkling that the case would become a cause célèbre.

Four months later, she gave birth to a daughter and surrendered her for adoption. (Her second child had also been given up for adoption, and her first was being raised by her mother.) She had little contact with her lawyers, never went to court or was asked to testify, and was uninvolved in proceedings that took three years to reach the Supreme Court.

Something most people who even know who she was probably don’t know is that Norma McCorvey never had an abortion. This Times article reports that her mother raised her first child, Norma ‘gave her second child up’ for adoption, and “surrendered” her third child for adoption while her court case was still being heard. But she gave them life. As tough as her life circumstances had been, she gave life to three children and families have grown as a result. She admitted to a local radio station “I think I have always been pro-life. I just didn’t know it.”

Another point coming out of accounts of Norma McCorvey’s life and death is that her conversion from abortion backer to pro-life advocate, from seeker to Christian to baptized Catholic, came as a result of the friendship first encountered with minister Flip Benham, whose “humility disarmed her”, according to this Washington Post piece. She worked in an abortion clinic, he worked next door in a pro-life office.

As McCorvey stood outside smoking…Benham sat down beside her. He apologized for calling her names: “I saw my words drop into your heart, and I know they hurt you deeply.”

McCorvey was taken aback. She excused herself, went inside and cried, she wrote (in her book Won By Love)…

“The war in front of our clinic became a war of love and hatred,” McCorvey wrote in her book.

Love won. Her longtime friends at Priests for Life know her fuller story personally, from working with her in the pro-life movement for over two decades, and receiving her into the Catholic Church. Here’s an account by Fr. Frank Pavone, who knew her best.

She was used for a time as an icon by those in the “pro-choice” movement, but they were plagued by her straightforwardness. On one occasion, when she was being shown a new abortion device, she shocked the clinic administrator by bluntly asking, “Is that what you guys use to suck the children out of their mothers’ wombs?”

Then she began flirting with the truth, a little here and a little there. As St. Peter was brought to repentance at the moment he heard the cock crow, Norma heard several cocks crow. In many instances. it was a normal human event that became a deep interior summons to life. Rev. Flip Benham, the founder of Operation Rescue, apologized to her one day for some unpleasant things he had said on a previous occasion. His admission to her that he, too, was a sinner, opened her eyes to the fact that pro-lifers were not self-righteous.

On another occasion, she was moved by the hug of Emily, the little girl whose invitations to Norma to come to Church finally prevailed upon her. This is significant. Many in the abortion industry fail to recognize the value of the unborn child’s life because they fail to recognize the value of their own lives. The hug and invitations of this little girl gave Norma a message that many others in her life had denied: You are lovable; you are good: your life is valuable.

Conversion is not an easy road. Norma began realizing many things she didn’t like, such as how cold and callous the abortion industry really is, being more concerned for itself than the good of the woman. She even began persuading women not to have the abortions for which they were calling to make an appointment. Little by little, truth drew her in and proved itself more attractive than the abortion industry. Her rediscovery of the value of her own life helped her rediscover the value of the unborn.

That is what the pro-life movement has been about, since Roe v. Wade, it will continue to be the mission of the pro-life movement to be a whole life message of love and care for mothers and their children, and Norma McCorvey dedicated the last decades of her life to ending what Roe wrought, and spreading what she knew from firsthand experience. Which wasn’t abortion.

Tagged with:
Feb 10

But the New York Times snubs it, revealing that the Times bestseller list is a matter of opinion.

And here we thought all this time that books made that prestigious list by actually being current bestsellers, by the numbers.

Not so, it turns out.

Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer is a new blockbuster exposé by filmmakers and investigative journalists Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, the latest compelling project by the pair known for dogged research and solid documentation in their solid, straightforward documentaries and now this book. It sold out of Amazon and Barnes & Noble in three days, and outsold all but three nonfiction hardcover titles.

But the New York Times refused to include Gosnell on their nonfiction “Print Hardcover Best Sellers” list. Which makes it de facto dishonest about that list actually being ‘Best Sellers’.

Regnery Publishing claimed the Times ‘blatantly snubbed the pro-life book from the bestseller list’, though it certainly earned its place there.

When Gosnell released on January 24, it rose to #3 on Amazon’s best seller list of all book and was the #1 ‘Hot New Release’. While Gosnell landed on the “Combined Print & E-Book Best Sellers” list (at #13), the Times ignored the real sales numbers and refused to correctly list Gosnell as the 4th bestselling nonfiction title. ‘

The book reached that mark without any so-called ‘mainstream media’ attention—no reviews, no features, no author interviews. Gosnell’s meteoric success, and the New York Times’ coverup of that success,  mirrors what happened when the story first broke about the Pennsylvania abortionist’s “House of Horrors’, dubbed that by authorities when they raided the ‘clinic’ as an alleged ‘pill mill’ and discovered atrocities.

I covered it here many times, including the Grand Jury Report, after they visited the site wearing Hazmat suits for protection from any contact with the wretched filth and human decay inside the place. One of the chapters of that report is titled ‘How Did This Go On So Long?’, which Phelim and Ann answer with details and documentation in the book and upcoming film on Gosnell.

Their projects reveal how authorities astoundingly looked the other way when this former back alley abortionist ran an operation in their territory that broke laws and took more lives than America’s most notorious serial killers put together.

When the Gosnell case finally went to trial, it was ignored by media. Kirsten Powers called them out on that, as did other journalists and a Twitter campaign that ran a photo of an empty media section in the courtroom. The lack of media coverage continues now, with this book of revelations people need to read, especially those who may be considering abortion and those who work in the industry.

Ann McElhinney, co-author of Gosnell, says, “This is shocking that the cover-up of the Gosnell story is continuing even after the mainstream media were so criticized for failing to cover the trial.

“It’s clear that this is a blatant fake list in a fake news newspaper. It’s not only an insult to the people who have bought this book, but an insult to the readers of the New York Times who buy the newspaper and think they are getting the truth about book sales across America but instead get false facts disguised as a neutral list.”

McElhinney rightly adds, “The media doesn’t want this story to see the light of day because it shines a negative light on abortion.”

This has happened before with the Times’ bestseller list and been reported before, when it excluded outstanding Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel’s book (ironically, as this article notes), The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech.

NewsBusters posted on the Gosnell omission from the list, including an explanation someone at the Times gave in response to the Media Research Center’s news site.

A New York Times representative defended the outlet’s methodology Tuesday in a comment to MRC Culture:

“The Times’s best-seller lists are based on a detailed analysis of book sales from a wide range of retailers who provide us with specific and confidential context of their sales each week. These standards are applied consistently, across the board in order to provide Times readers our best assessment of what books are the most broadly popular at that time.”

She added, “That process is not influenced in any way by the content of a book, or by pressure from publishers or book sellers.”

Ann and Phelim don’t buy that disclaimer, nor does their publisher, with so many people buying the book it sold out on Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Books A Million in the first week. I talked with each of them on radio last week, both passionate authors, filmmakers, journalists and storytellers. They just want to know the truth about the most important events and news stories of our times, stories impacting the lives of so many people in communities and across the nation.

Crime stories are big sellers as television series, drama or horror stories in film, and fiction novels. This is a real life one, possibly flagging us to the possibility of other Gosnells out there doing these same things undetected or unreported right now, in other states in the country.

While the New York Times and other big media outlets continue to ignore Gosnell, the sales of this new book clearly prove that the American people want to know the truth.

Tagged with:
Feb 09

Women’s March on DC, March for Life, Human Trafficking Awareness.

None of these things is like the other, except that for the marches, hundreds of thousands of women and male sympathizers and advocates, of all ages, descended on Washington DC within a week of each other. While the effort to combat human trafficking was a month long awareness campaign. They got varying degrees of news coverage, and had core commonality: women.

And that tied them together in a ‘what’s wrong with this picture’ snapshot of division and dissent in America.

An Independent Journal Review writer captures it with little text and ample photographic proof of points.

A week after the Inauguration of Donald Trump, politically active women across America could choose to make themselves heard at two major rallies revolving around women’s issues. They could attend a pro-choice, feminist march known as the Women’s March or they could wait one week and attend the 44th annual pro-life, March for Life.

Some lucky few, such as myself, were able to attend both.

How were they different? She supplied ample proof in the photographs that they were diametrically opposite.

Take a look for yourself, perhaps you will agree.

The photos are lined up according to categories, and each type had comparative color photos to illustrate the point:

Young adults at both marches (photos) Examples of inclusion (photos) Signs at both marches (photos) Attire (photos) Speakers (photos) Men (photos)

The main reason for the 1st annual women’s march (photos) The Main reason for the 44th march for life (photos)

Then she concluded:

“Only one march persuaded me to attend again.”

Her reason was obvious, and made abundantly clear. (I don’t link to the article intentionally. Some of the graphics are vulgar and terribly undignified to the women and men who chose to portray themselves and make their graphic statements as they did. I choose not to make such disgrace more accessible.)

A writer who attended the March for Life turned up this past week in First Things with a first hand account that made admissions not often heard but painfully accurate in their incisive truths.

The voices proclaiming the “Forty-Fourth Annual March for Life” seemed to be celebrating an anniversary, not observing four-and-a-half decades of failure. If there was mourning at this event, it was hidden behind the banners and posters, behind the colorful sweatshirts of school groups, behind the cheers and prayers of the friendly crowds…

“This is the generation that will end abortion!” the speakers exclaim, every year. And every following year the marchers return, with equal enthusiasm and good cheer, as our national shame grows one year deeper.

But this year there was some justification for the enthusiasm. For the first time, a vice president visited the march, and the president tweeted his full support. One did not need to be a Trump supporter to applaud the administration’s reiterated promises to defund Planned Parenthood and appoint pro-life justices…

A week earlier, the Women’s March had formally committed itself to the abortion license, and anti-abortion women marching against Trump had found themselves heckled and marginalized. But at the March for Life, no efforts were made to police the ideology of the marchers. Feminists for Life, some stalwart Democrats for Life, and a pregnant woman carrying the quixotic poster: “End Abortion: Abolish Capitalism” walked side by side with the #MAGA caps and monarchists. All political differences faded in a cause greater than any government.

Since we must have a government, those of us who oppose abortion will listen to Trump’s promises. We will hope that he keeps them. But the enthusiasm I saw at the march last Friday, the cheerful and confident faces, was not the result of any recent election. It has been there for years, and will be as long as the fight against abortion continues.

And that will be for a while, since the major setbacks Planned Parenthood and the entire abortion industry and its backers suffered in Election 2016, in addition to the increase of common sense abortion restriction laws, and the undercover investigative series of videos revealing the marketing of baby body parts, has – somehow – helped the abortion giant mount a massive fundraising campaign. And use those funds and that marketing campaign push back against the federal government redirecting taxpayer funds away from abortion providers and toward federally qualified, comprehensive women’s health clinics.

All of which is aided by complicit big media, whose style books don’t allow for the ‘pro-life’ designation and haven’t for years. Or decades.

NPR is a good example.

The New York Times has plenty of examples, from this article using ‘anti-abortion march’ (as opposed to the Women’s March on Washington) in the headline of an article that opens with the words “For opponents of abortion…”

Which, interestingly, this NYT article did only slightly differently, using the headline ‘Abortion Foes Aim to Compete With Turnout for Women’s March’. Which also opens with the words “Opponents of abortion…” (And, note to NYT staff writers: The March for Life just held its 44th annual event, swelling each year into higher numbers of young activists joining the faithful annual attendees, making the whole event hundreds of thousands strong, and not competing with anybody. Though that was a revealing claim.)

And then there’s this post-March report in the Times declaring that “Pence Tells Anti-Abortion Marchers That ‘Life is Winning’, and again opening the article with the words “Abortion opponents…”, and used that wording in the text to talk about “opposition to abortion” to define a huge swath of America committed for four decades and growing, by what they oppose, and not propose.

Just saying. It’s so entrenched, so ingrained, so obvious, the bias.

But look who did that. This little blog post, off the beaten track of big media websites and spinoff blogs, written by a Dominican Brother to share experiences in the Dominican priory which happened to be situated just off the Mall of Washington and close to massive crowds assembled there for the Women’s March.

There were not enough restrooms set up for the Women’s March that took place in Washington, DC, the day after the presidential inauguration. I found this out while visiting the Dominican priory on the southern side of the National Mall, where I saw many people from the March looking around for a restroom. Observing the desperation of those outside, some friars kindly offered to let a dozen marchers use the public restrooms in the priory. But, unexpectedly, hundreds of people quickly formed a line seeking relief.

While I was interested in helping those in need, this small act of mercy became a source of anxiety. Not only was a large crowd descending on the priory, but with the people came many disagreeable signs, shirts, and hats, some of which had messages that were anti-Catholic, pro-abortion, vulgar, or even pornographic. Nevertheless, those carrying or wearing these things had the courtesy to cover them up. The fervor that may have animated the large crowd did not go so deep as to make people oblivious or rude to flesh-and-blood humans.

That’s great news. Br. Martin’s account gives hope that “we can often find common ground on many issues when we take the time to speak with others.”

I have had several conversations on radio with guests who are doing this in their daily work, as I am in mine, speaking with whoever will listen and speak in turn, and engage. Anyone open to dialogue, with ideas grounded in fact and reason, and propositions backed by resources, and offers to help in any way needed, free for the taking. Especially for those in crisis, trouble, or need of any kind.

January was Human Trafficking Awareness Month. But Wednesday was ‘International Day of Prayer and Awareness Against Human Trafficking’ marked annually on 8 February, which falls on the feast of St. Josephine Bakita, who Pope Francis called an “enslaved, exploited and humiliated girl” who never lost hope, ended up a migrant in Europe, and became a nun.

Wednesday I featured a guest on radio who devotes his work to battling human trafficking and calls for “a new vigilance, a rising up, particularly of men who will love incredibly and sacrifically,” It was Australian musician Joel Smallbone, lead actor of PRICELESS, the top independent film on launch weekend last October, dramatically dealing with the issue of human trafficking in what turns out to be a drama about heroic love and sacrifice. Joel and his brother, Luke Smallbone, head the Grammy Award-winning band for KING & COUNTRY, and are releasing the film on DVD and On Demand February 14th from Universal Pictures Home Entertainment, in time for Valentine’s Day.

Joel explains it’s a love story that emphasizes the value of women, building a movement on the “idea of respect and honor in relationship and women being priceless. What we’ve found in our beliefs as men is that people are made equal. No one is a commodity and everyone deserves to be loved and loved well.”

He told me that “women are being objectified for their body or their looks, but not loved for their inherent beauty,” and he called this “a blatant ideology” that unfortunately, enslaves so many people in America and the world.

I thought of those in the Women’s March in January, who marched through the streets of DC in costumes made to appear as ‘women’s private parts’, female genitalia, and the signs with vulgar messages. And wondered how they could not realize how they degraded themselves and other women, objectifying them and playing right into the “blatant ideology” of women as commodities.

As Br. Martin showed, we’ve got to try to speak with each other, and find common ground.

Tagged with:
Feb 01

‘Choice’ was always a flimsy cover.

After 44 years of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade, and tens of millions of human lives never lived and children never known or given a chance to be held, known or loved by their parents or at least one of them, or any family member, or couples eager to adopt, the cost of this violence and the cumulative ravages and drastic loss it left has been realized and mourned.

Of all the articles, columns, commentaries, posts and testimonies that have given voice to the plaintive cry of this awareness, this one sums up as well as any the story of how the ‘pro-choice’ movement came about and grew, and how it started falling apart as revelations came to light of what abortion really is and does. What it takes, and what it leaves behind.

It’s a grim experience, going through an abortion, and we assumed a woman would choose one only as a last resort. We were fighting for that “last resort.” We had no idea how common the procedure would become; today, one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion. Nor could we have imagined how high abortion numbers would climb. In the 43 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been 59 million abortions. It’s hard even to grasp a number that big…

We expected that abortion would be rare. What we didn’t realize was that, once abortion becomes available, it becomes the most attractive option for everyone around the pregnant woman. If she has an abortion, it’s like the pregnancy never existed. No one is inconvenienced…

Abortion can’t really turn back the clock. It can’t push the rewind button on life and make it so that she was never pregnant. It can make it easy for everyone around the woman to forget the pregnancy, but the woman herself may struggle. When she first sees the positive pregnancy test she may feel, in a panicky way, that she has to get rid of it as fast as possible. But life stretches on after abortion, for months and years — for many long nights — and all her life long she may ponder the irreversible choice she made.

Frederica Matthewes-Green captures the gamut of abortion emotions, lies and truths, activism and realism in a keenly exquisite expression of the impact of abortion.

This issue gets presented as if it’s a tug of war between the woman and the baby. We see them as mortal enemies, locked in a fight to the death. But that’s a strange idea, isn’t it? It must be the first time in history when mothers and their own children have been assumed to be at war. We’re supposed to picture the child attacking her, trying to destroy her hopes and plans, and picture the woman grateful for the abortion, since it rescued her from the clutches of her child…

Read the article. She asks the intellectually honest question of how we would react to seeing this sort of behavior in nature, in animals, with a mother turning on her own babies.

You would immediately think, “Something must be really wrong in this environment.”

So how did this early pro-choice feminist come to this?

I changed my opinion on abortion after I read an article in Esquire magazine, way back in 1976. I was home from grad school, flipping through my dad’s copy, and came across an article titled “What I Saw at the Abortion.” The author, Richard Selzer, was a surgeon, and he was in favor of abortion, but he’d never seen one. So he asked a colleague whether, next time, he could go along.

Selzer described seeing the patient, 19 weeks pregnant, lying on her back on the table. (That is unusually late; most abortions are done by the tenth or twelfth week.) The doctor performing the procedure inserted a syringe into the woman’s abdomen and injected her womb with a prostaglandin solution, which would bring on contractions and cause a miscarriage. (This method isn’t used anymore, because too often the baby survived the procedure — chemically burned and disfigured, but clinging to life. Newer methods, including those called “partial birth abortion” and “dismemberment abortion,” more reliably ensure death.)

After injecting the hormone into the patient’s womb, the doctor left the syringe standing upright on her belly. Then, Selzer wrote, “I see something other than what I expected here. . . . It is the hub of the needle that is in the woman’s belly that has jerked. First to one side. Then to the other side. Once more it wobbles, is tugged, like a fishing line nibbled by a sunfish.” He realized he was seeing the fetus’s desperate fight for life. And as he watched, he saw the movement of the syringe slow down and then stop. The child was dead. Whatever else an unborn child does not have, he has one thing: a will to live. He will fight to defend his life.

The last words in Selzer’s essay are, “Whatever else is said in abortion’s defense, the vision of that other defense [i.e., of the child defending its life] will not vanish from my eyes. And it has happened that you cannot reason with me now. For what can language do against the truth of what I saw?”

The truth of what he saw disturbed me deeply. There I was, anti-war, anti–capital punishment, even vegetarian, and a firm believer that social justice cannot be won at the cost of violence. Well, this sure looked like violence. How had I agreed to make this hideous act the centerpiece of my feminism? How could I think it was wrong to execute homicidal criminals, wrong to shoot enemies in wartime, but all right to kill our own sons and daughters?

After so much more deeply probing, painful, confessional thought, she concludes…

In time, it’s going to be impossible to deny that abortion is violence against children. Future generations, as they look back, are not necessarily going to go easy on ours. Our bland acceptance of abortion is not going to look like an understandable goof. In fact, the kind of hatred that people now level at Nazis and slave-owners may well fall upon our era. Future generations can accurately say, “It’s not like they didn’t know.” They can say, “After all, they had sonograms.” They may consider this bloodshed to be a form of genocide. They might judge our generation to be monsters. One day, the tide is going to turn. With that Supreme Court decision 43 years ago, one of the sides in the abortion debate won the day. But sooner or later, that day will end.

It’s happening now, and this 44th annual March for Life last weekend adds another element of closure on the lies of more than four decades of abortion activism. These students at the University of Notre Dame expressed in a brief letter to the editor of a student newspaper the core reasons for their pro-life activism, in a message that is whole-life as much as anything.

Why We March.

We march because we believe that abortion is the deliberate and systematic dehumanization of an entire class of people based on their age, wantedness and state of dependency.

We march because we stand against the elimination of human life based on sex, race or disability.

We march because the world that we want for those who are refugees, immigrants, poor, elderly, homeless, disabled, sick or lonely is impossible if we allow the dehumanization of any group of persons, especially vulnerable or defenseless persons.

We march against any human person being considered disposable for the “greater good,” against any deliberate death being justified as a “necessary evil,” against any human life being classified as “negligible.”

We march because we believe what we’ve said before: Dependency is not a measure of worth. No poverty, no vulnerability, no age, no disability, no sickness and no condition has the capability of demeaning the worth of any human person.

We march for a world in which all life is defended and valued, in which all life is considered with the dignity it deserves.

The president of the Notre Dame Right to Life organization and one of the letter writes was on my radio program talking about the more than 710 Notre Dame members attending the DC March for Life as one of many activities the group carries out throughout the year to advocate for the dignity and defense of vulnerable human life.

One new plan they have is to hold roundtables or panel discussions on campus between people who hold pro-life beliefs, and those who believe abortion should remain legal and provided as an option for women in an unwanted pregnancy. The ground rules would be that each would listen to the other, engage with civility, and agree to work together for the common good.

This needs to happen. The Women’s March on Washington a week before the March for Life in DC couldn’t have been more opposite in goals and demonstration of mission. There has got to be some ground on which human rights activists can walk together.

Tagged with:
Jan 24

Included an Executive Order on taxpayer funding of abortion.

This is a ritual that the past several presidents gave Day One priority to, in deciding the order of business requiring immediate attention when sworn into office. It’s called the Mexico City Policy and Democratic presidents overturn it while Republican presidents reinstate it. President Trump did that, and then some.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser headed the pro-life coalition of advisers Trump consulted late in his campaign, and her organization has kept elected officials and voters well aware of the promises he made to pro-life citizens, and updated on latest news following up on those promises. Even since the most recent post to its website, SBA List sent out an update with more background on how comprehensive this Executive Order is, and why it needed to specify more than past reinstatements. And what Dannenfelser added:

1. President Trump has modernized the Mexico City Policy by directing the Secretary of State to implement a plan to extend the Mexico City Policy across all global health assistance funding.

2. President Trump has directed the Secretary of State to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars do not support organizations that support or participate in the management of a coercive abortion program. An example of this would be the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has a long history of supporting the Chinese population control program, which has included forced abortions.

“Not only has President Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy, he’s modernized it by applying it to all foreign health assistance programs,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “For nearly a decade under President Obama, Americans have funded UNFPA, which has a long history of involvement in China’s brutal birth limitation policy – enforcement of which routinely includes the atrocity of forced abortions. Thanks to President Trump, the Secretary of State is directed to ensure Americans are no longer complicit in violating the dignity of women and children overseas. No longer will abortion be a top U.S. export.

This came as great news to pro-life advocates based in the U.S. and abroad.

Reggie Littlejohn of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers had written an open letter to President-elect Donald Trump in December, asking him to investigate Planned Parenthood and “If they are found to be complicit with coercive population control in China – as we believe they will be — we request that you defund them.”

Obianuju Ekeocha of Culture of Life Africa has released a video revealing the reach and attempted grasp of Marie Stopes International in exporting abortion to Africa. Culture of Life Africa has reason for hope in the reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy.

Marie Stopes says abortion is at the core of their mission and hopes to double their abortion-related services by 2020. Their staff has been caught on tape boasting of doing illegal abortions around the world, and their United Kingdom branch was recently forced to temporarily suspend abortion services for children and vulnerable populations due to serious safety concerns. Marie Stopes is also actively involved in trying to overturn prolife laws overseas. Organizations like Marie Stopes should not receive American taxpayer support.

Both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush cut off funding to the UNFPA during their administrations. In 1993, President Bill Clinton resumed funding for UNFPA, but for fiscal year 1999 signed a foreign aid appropriations bill that zeroed out funding for UNFPA. Funding to UNFPA was again completely cut off under President George W. Bush. In 2008, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell explained: “UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion. Therefore, it is not permissible to continue funding UNFPA at this time.” President Obama resumed U.S. taxpayer funding of UNFPA in 2009. From 2009 to 2016, over $300 million has been appropriated for UNFPA.

Both Uju and Reggie will be my guests on radio Tuesday to cover the impact of the Mexico City Policy being reinstated, and the operations and agenda of the international abortion movement. They’re both eager to engage the conversation and more fully inform the public. This is the global conversation we need to have and to hear.

Tagged with:
Jan 19

Like him or not, the office is bigger than the officeholder. It’s time to rise to the occasion.

For the moment, let’s put aside the divisions and differences and for one, major, historic occasion that comes along only every so many years in a lifetime, come together as a nation of free citizens. And be grateful, together, and respect each other, for our shared dignity and humanity.

That’s not a lofty goal, it’s reachable. I knew that from earliest childhood, seemingly innately but surely also because of the upbringing I had in a good, strong family and my classical education in a Catholic school, where discipline, order, morality and service were in the air we breathed.

Growing up, I soaked in news and politics because that’s how things were communicated and run in this country. I asked questions and listened, keenly, to what was said. By my parents, other extended family, news reporters, politicians, the nation’s top leaders. I read the daily newspaper cover to cover from a very young age, cutting out the photos but writing my own story in the little newspapers I made. But I made them especially for the big stories of the day, for posterity I think. Stories about political conventions when they lasted much longer and politicians were longer winded (believe it or not). About the aspirations of some big name people and desperation of little known people, especially those in the path of danger or despair.

The presidential cycles were always big, because of the big ideas debated and promises made and plans offered. No matter who won, the swearing in of a new president was a Very Big Event in America, and in my life.

So I really appreciated the commentary I heard earlier this week from newsman Neil Cavuto at the end of his news hour, brief as it was, because it said what I felt, and I suspect a lot of Americans do as well. At least I hope so.

Honoring the institutions that define us.

This is, for the most part, what he said.

This peaceful transfer of power is what we’re all about. We are free not to like our presidents. It’s our business. But it’s our country. This isn’t so much about honoring the man who is assuming the office, but the office itself. This is not so much about the president, but the presidency.

It’s about what unites the vast crowds who brave the Washington cold every four years to witness history, to see something historic, no matter who is being sworn in. Just to be there. To feel it. To witness it. To be a part of it. Whether it’s about a retired General without a lick of political experience [Eisenhower], or a peanut farmer from the Deep South without any Washington experience [Carter]. Or an Illinois backwoodsman who takes command of a nation just as it’s coming apart [Lincoln], or a ridiculously young Massachusetts senator emerging from the closest American election to that date [Kennedy], or an African American drawing record crowds [Obama] to witness that moment, whether they voted for that man or not, because it’s not about the man, nor someday soon I hope, the woman, not the officeholder, but the office.

It’s about not just the house, but the White House. The institutions that define us are so much bigger than the passing occupants who come and go before us. Inaugurations are about honoring that, all of that, and all of us, that space in time we give space to each other, even as many are packed on the Mall, vast numbers, like sardines, with eyes fixed on the Capitol, some so far away they can’t even see who the heck is being sworn in. Just that they swore to be there to see it as it all played out…

What really matters is our American rite of passage, whether we like what’s passing before us or not. This is the day we give the benefit to our doubts, even as history shows, we doubted in our darkest moments whether we’d see any benefit at all. Yet we did, we do, it is our constant, our core. It is our right to celebrate, or not celebrate at all. As long as we step back and recognize this day, that it’s not about our next leader. It’s about us, the people he is leading.

Let’s celebrate, somehow, together. And then take up our responsibilities as citizens to make ourselves, our families, our communities and our nation better.

Tagged with:
preload preload preload