quarta-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2015

Facebook Não é Charlie (nem a Turquia).

Muitos só "são Charlie" até o ponto que não se atinge o estômago ou o bolso.

Al Gore, grande defensor do aquecimento global, certa vez foi perguntado se pararia de comer carne para evitar o aquecimento global, respondeu que não, pois sabia que mais cedo ou mais tarde iria ser pego comendo carne. O time de futebol Real Madrid só usa a cruz de seu símbolo quando não atrapalha seus negócios, quando lida com muçulmanos trata logo de tirar a cruz.

Agora vemos o Facebook se rebaixando a Turquia e bloqueando qualquer site que "ofenda" o Islã. O fundador do Facebook e a própria Turquia tinham dito que "eram Charlie".

Vejam a reportagem do site The Corner.

Facebook Complies with Turkish Orders to Block Pages Insulting Islam

Facebook has chosen to comply with a Turkish court’s order to block webpages containing content offensive to Islam, according to several reports.
A Facebook employee told the New York Times that the company agreed to shutdown a number of pages with offensive content within 24 hours of the request, which threatened to ban the site from the country otherwise. Al Jazeera reports that Facebook called the court’s demand a “valid legal request.” It’s certainly not an empty one: Turkey has blocked access to both Twitter and YouTube over the past few years when they’ve refused to comply with government requests.
Both Turkey and Facebook were singing a different tune earlier this month: Turkey’s prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, was one of many world leaders who attended a march in Paris show support for the French and people and the murdered staffers of Charlie Hebdo, which had been notorious for publishing content satirizing Islam.
Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg also voiced his support for the magazine with his own Facebook post, in which he called his company “a place where people across the world share their views and ideas,” ending the note “#JeSuisCharlie.”
Turkey has had a terrible record on free speech under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan​, especially with regard to Islam. Just after the march in Paris, the government threatened action against any publication or website that printed theCharlie Hebdo images, and at least one paper is under investigation for having printed them. Turkey has also had more journalists in prison than any other country in the world in recent years.

(Agradeço a informação  e a imagem ao site Weasel Zippers)

terça-feira, 27 de janeiro de 2015

Relato do Repórter que Fugiu da Argentina por conta das Ameaças do Governo sobre caso Nisman

Artigo saiu no jornal israelense The Haaretz.

Why I fled Argentina after breaking the story of Alberto Nisman’s death
In an exclusive column, Jewish journalist Damian Pachter – who first reported on the death of the special prosecutor – recounts the intimidation, the sleepless nights, the agent who stalked him and his ultimate decision to head for Israel.
By Damian Pachter 18:15 25.01.15 http://www.haaretz.com/images/icons/comment.png 11

So here they are, the craziest 48 hours of my life.
When my source gave me the scoop on Alberto Nisman’s death, I was writing a piece on the special prosecutor’s accusations against President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, her (Jewish) Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman, two pro-Iran “social activists” and parliamentarian Andrés Larroque. I learned that Nisman had been shot dead in his home.
The vetting process wasn’t too tough because of my source’s incredible attention to detail. His name will never be revealed.
Two things stood in my mind: my source’s safety and people’s right to know what happened that day, though not necessarily in that order.
Of course, for both speed and the contagion effect, Twitter was the way to go. The information was so solid I never doubted my source, despite my one or two colleagues who doubted me because I only had 420 Twitter followers — a number now eclipsing 10,000.
As the night went on, journalists contacted me in order to get the news from me even more directly. The first to do so was Gabriel Bracesco.
Once I tweeted that Nisman had died, hundreds of people quickly retweeted the news and started following me. That was my first of many sleepless days.
“You just broke the best story in decades,” lots of people said. “You’re crazy,” was another take. Either way, nobody questioned that the situation was very grave.
The following days were marked by a government trying to create an official story. First, the head of state suggested a “suicide hypothesis,” then a mysterious murder. They of course were not to blame. In anything.

That week I received several messages from one of my oldest and best sources. He urged me to visit him, but in those crazy days I underestimated his proposal.
On Friday I was working at the Buenos Aires Herald.com newsroom when a colleague from the BBC urged me to look at the state news agency’s story on Nisman’s death. The piece had some serious typos but the message was even stranger: The agency quoted a supposed tweet of mine that I never wrote.
Bus to nowhere
I cursed in anger, adding amid the profanity: “I’ll tweet this and then they’ll see.” But I waited a few minutes to cool down and realized that this tweet was a kind of coded message.
So I bounced it off my friend, who said: “Get out now and go to Retiro,” Buenos Aires’ central bus station. “And come visit me. You have to leave the city.” It was around 8:30 P.M.
I was very lucky: When I arrived a bus would be leaving in two minutes. Where that bus was going I’ll never reveal either.
After several hours on the road, I arrived at the bus station, where I remained for a couple of hours. It turns out this was a big mistake: I think that was the place someone started watching me. But I didn’t realize it back then.
I didn’t want to stay too long in any one place, so I walked over to a gas-station joint nearby. My friend contacted me and said: “I’ll be there in 20 minutes.”
I was sitting around there for two hours or so when a very strange person came in. He wore jeans, a jeans jacket and Ray-Ban sunglasses. I noticed him immediately but stayed where I was. He was sitting two tables from me.
Suddenly I felt a finger on my neck and jumped like I never did my whole life.
“You’re a bit jumpy son” — it was my friend making one of his jokes. “You’re under surveillance; haven’t you noticed the intelligence guy behind you?”
“The one with the jeans and Ray-Bans?”
“What does he want?”
“Stay calm and look into my camera,” my guy said as he took my picture. Well, actually he took a picture of the intelligence officer, who left five minutes later. I have that picture here with me.
I then had to consider the best thing to do, because when an Argentine intelligence agent is on your tail, it’s never good news. He didn’t just want to have a coffee with me, that’s for sure.
Montevideo and Madrid
In any case, the decision came quick: I had to leave the country immediately. So I contacted one of my best friends, who got scared but understood the situation. We had to do it quickly, and I’m sure his efficiency saved my life. I will forever be grateful to him.
So I did it: I bought a ticket from Buenos Aires, to Montevideo, Uruguay, to Madrid to Tel Aviv.
I had to keep a low profile in order to get by the security forces. So I went back to the Retiro bus station — the scariest part of that long day. I was sure that if something happened, it would happen at the train station, a very dangerous place at night.
I had the feeling someone was after me and I’d get shot from some strange angle. But then I suspected my taxi driver even more. I figured he’d stray and take me off somewhere.
Meanwhile, text messages were sent to my two best colleagues, a friend and my mom. They were told where we would meet: Buenos Aires Airport. I couldn’t spend any time on the phone because I was being surveilled.
When my mother arrived she of course cried but remained calm. We discussed a few things and I told her to leave. Then my journalist friends came and we did an interview that has already hit Argentina’s top newspapers. I was flying back home, to Tel Aviv, as I always wanted to.
I have no idea when I’ll be back in Argentina; I don’t even know if I want to. What I do know is that the country where I was born is not the happy place my Jewish grandparents used to tell me stories about.
After I left Argentina I found out that the government was still publishing wrong information about me on social media. The Twitter feed of Casa Rosada, the Argentine presidential palace, posted the details of the airline ticket I had bought, and claimed that I intended to return to Argentina by February 2 — in other words, I hadn’t really fled the country. In fact, my return date is in December.
A tweet from the Presidential Palace showing Pachter's flight itinerary.

Argentina has become a dark place led by a corrupt political system. I still haven’t figured out everything that has happened to me over the past 48 hours. I never imagined my return to Israel would be like this.


Bom, acho que o réporter fez um ótimo resumo no último parágrafo: Argentina se tornou um país pária.

segunda-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2015

84% dos Palestinos acham que Israel matou Cartunistas da Charlie Hebdo.

Para que alguém se recupere de uma doença, o primeiro passo é reconhecer que tem a doença. Mas os palestinos não reconhecem o terrorismo islâmico como uma doença. Quando o flagra é muito ostensivo, há imagens e bom som identificando o terrorismo islâmico, sempre é possível uma teoria da conspiração para dizer que o "mal é o outro".

Como o mundo pode esperar uma autocrítica dos muçulmanos sobre terrorismo, se eles não reconhecem que este terrorismo exista?

O jornal oficial da Autoridade Palestina, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, diz que foi Israel que executou os ataques em Paris que mataram os cartunistas e quatro judeus (!). Isto mesmo, Israel teria matado seus próprios filhos para finalidade política.

O pior é que pesquisa entre palestinos mostra que a imensa maioria deles (84%) concorda com o jornal.

Vejam texto do Palestinian Media Watch (para entender:  PA quer dizer Autoridade Palestina)

84% of “Palestinians” believe Israel was behind Paris jihad massacres

Following the terror attacks against the Charlie Hebdo magazine and a Jewish store in which Muslim terrorists killed 17 people in France earlier this month, columnists writing for the official Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida have claimed that Israel was behind the attacks.
This view is shared by the vast majority of Palestinians, according to a poll conducted by Ma’an (an independent Palestinian news agency). The poll  found that 84.4% support the claim that “the operation (i.e., terror attack) was suspicious, and that Israel may be behind it,” while “only 8.7% believed that the murder of the French [citizens] in Paris was a natural result of the spread of Islamic extremism in Europe.” [Ma’an, Jan. 19, 2015]
The writers of the official PA daily have argued that Mossad, the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service, planned the attacks because Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders want to encourage Jewish immigration and take “revenge on European governments… because of their… support for… an independent Palestinian state.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 15, 2015] (Longer excerpts of all quoted articles appear below)
One regular columnist, Muwaffaq Matar, argued that because Netanyahu “wishes to realize the myth of the ‘Jewishness of Israel'” and encourage immigration, the attacks against Jews in France and elsewhere in Europe were “no coincidence, but a carefully executed and fully controlled plan.” He further argued that these claims were true because “‘Netanyahu’s Jewish State’ was the only one to benefit” from these attacks. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 15, 2015]
Netanyahu “trades with the blood of the 17 victims of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper and of the supermarket,” wrote another regular columnist, Omar Hilmi Al-Ghoul. He pointed out that Netanyahu wanted to “exploit the terrorism that struck some French Jews” to encourage them “to immigrate to Israel.” The writer claimed that “Turkish sources, including intelligence and the mayor of Ankara” determined that the attacks were “planned by the Israeli Mossad.” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 14, 2015]
Similarly, a journalist, Akram Atallah, interviewed on official PA TV claimed that “in the past, the Israeli Mossad carried out operations (i.e., terror attacks): It bombed synagogues in order to force the Jews to emigrate,” and that “the operation (i.e., the terror attack onCharlie Hebdo) served Israel’s demographic [interests], for the Israeli media and government bodies predicted yesterday that 10,000 French Jews would immigrate to Israel.” [Official PA TV, Jan. 12, 2015]
Another writer, Yahya Rabah, claimed that Israel is behind “all the terrorist groups in the region,” trains them and provides them with weapons, and hinted that Israel, therefore, was behind the attacks in France:  “We have seen how Israeli terrorism in all its forms… is what grants patronage to all the terrorist groups in the region. Eventually, we have seen that terror[ists] have begun to receive training, weapons and perhaps [even] intelligence from Israel. Therefore, many believe that there was more to the last wave of terrorism in France than [just] two young Muslims. This was an [attempt to] target the role of France… [which voted] in favor of the Palestinian-Arab proposal at the [UN] Security Council last month!” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Jan. 11, 2015]…
(Agradeço informação ao site Jihad Watch)

sexta-feira, 23 de janeiro de 2015

Marcha pela Vida nos Estados Unidos. Obama Celebra o Aborto e 12 Fatos Terríveis sobre Aborto.

Ontem foi o dia da tradicional Marcha pela Vida nos Estados Unidos, na luta contra o aborto. É a maior Marcha pela Vida do mundo. E relembra tristemente o dia que o aborto foi legalizado nos Estados Unidos por meio da disputa jurídica Roe vs Wade de 1973.

A pessoa que pedia a legalização do aborto no caso na época (Jane Roe, cujo nome real é Norma MCorvey) depois se converteu ao catolicismo e hoje está na luta contra o aborto.

Mas o estrago é de proporções gigantescas: mais de 53 milhões de abortos nos Estados Unidos desde 1973. 53 milhões de crianças mortas.

Obama celebrou o aborto ontem, como faz sempre. Ele é facilmente considerado o mais abortista de todos os presidentes da história, quando era senador por Illinois ele chegou a defender que a criança que sobrevive a um aborto não deve receber socorro médico, deve ser deixada para morrer de inanição. 

Ontem, ele divulgou carta de apoio à decisão do Roe vs Wade, e alegou que "aborto é um direito da mulher" e que o "aborto faz com que as meninas tenham os mesmos direitos e liberdades que os meninos".

Eu já tinha ouvido a desculpa de que o aborto era um direito da mulher. A mulher teria o direito de matar outro ser humano, que é bem diferente dela, tem DNA completamente diferente e pode ter até outro sexo, simplesmente porque está dentro dela.

Sobre isso, Ryan Mayer mostrou 10 razões científicas e lógicas por que a criança no útero não é parte da mãe. É outro ser humano.

Mas eu nunca tinha ouvido a desculpa de que esta matança de crianças no útero torna as meninas com os mesmos direitos e liberdade dos meninos. Isto é completamente estúpido. Nem sei como se pode justificar isso e Obama não justificou, vejam a carta da Casa Branca.

Vejamos 12 fatos terríveis sobre o aborto, divulgado pelo site Church Pop, destaco o fatos 6 (maioria das mulheres que abortam estavam usando anticoncepcionais), 7 (minorias abortam mais, especialmente os negros), 8 (45% dos abortos são feitos por solteiras) e 11 (66% dos abortos ocorrem depois de quase dois meses de gravidez. Na oitava semana, a criança já tem todos os órgãos formados, mesmo que nem todos estejam funcionando completamente)

1) Since 1973 (with Roe vs Wade), there have been over 53 million abortions in the United States alone

To put that in perspective, that’s an average of about 1.3 million a year, about 108,000 a month, and over 3,500 per day. [Source]

2) Since 1971, there have been 336 million abortions in China alone [Source]

3) According to one estimate, since 1973, there have been 1.72 billion (1,720,000,000) abortions worldwide [Source]

4) By age 45, about 30% of U.S. women will have had at least one abortion [Source]

5) 42% of U.S. women who have abortions have incomes below the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)

Another 27% of U.S. women who have abortions have incomes between 100% and 199% of the federal poverty level. Together, that means that 69% of U.S. women who have abortions have incomes below twice the federal poverty level. [Source]

6) 51% of U.S. women who have abortions were using a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant [Source]

7) Minority women in the U.S. are over-represented in getting abortions

Black women have 30% of the abortions in the U.S., even though blacks make up 12.6% of the population. Hispanic women have 25% of abortions, even though hispanics make up 16.4% of the population. [Source]

8) 45% of abortions in the U.S. are obtained by women who have never been married and are not cohabiting [Source]

9) 57% of abortions in the U.S. are obtained by women between the ages of 20 and 29 [Source]

10) 17.4% of abortions in the U.S. are obtained by teenagers

15-17 year olds obtain 6% of abortions, 18-19 year olds 11%, and teens younger than 15 obtain 0.4%. [Source]

11) 66% of all abortions occur after 7 weeks

At that point, an embryo has a heart beat, blood flow, brain activity, hair, is capable of motion, and the beginnings of all essential organs. [SourceSource]

12) 37% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. identify as Protestant, and 28% identify as Catholic [Source]


E no Brasil?

Nos Estados Unidos a luta é contra todo tipo de aborto, mesmo de crianças fruto de estupro, incesto ou quevtenham má formação genética. Pela simples e lógica razão que defendesse a vida e todos merecem o dom da vida. Sem falar que a criança não é a mãe, nem o pai. É outra pessoa.

Mas no Brasil mesmo renomados católicos defendem aborto para "certos casos" , uma desgraça e uma contradição.

Rezemos pelos seres humanos mais indefesos: aqueles que estão no útero das mães.

quinta-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2015

Victor Davis Hanson: As Mentiras sobre como Derrortar o Terrorismo Islâmico

O historiador, especialista em questões militares, Victor Davis Hanson, é um dos mais renomados historiadores do mundo. Eu recomendo qualquer livro dele.

Victor Davis Hanson tem um blog e escreve para vários meios de comunicação. Ontem, eu li um artigo que ele escreveu sobre as mentiras que se contam sobre como derrotar o terrorismo islâmico.

Hanson faz uma análise qualificada dos seguintes argumentos que ele qualifica como truísmos mentirosos:

1) A solução para derrotar o terrorismo islâmico tem de sair dos próprios muçulmanos;

2) A vasta maioria dos muçulmanos não apoia o terror, então os muçulmanos não podem ser considerados naturalmente terroristas;

3) Não é possível uma solução militar para o terrorismo islâmico;

4) Se a gente não falar mal do Islã e formos atenciosos com os muçulmanos, o terrorismo acaba;

5) Nós precisamos ser bonzinhos e dar ouvidos ao que os muçulmanos querem, assim eles não irão nos atacar;

Acho que este texto é o melhor que li sobre o assunto, pela forma sucinta e didática que destrona todas estas mentiras. Leiam abaixo:

Untrue Truisms in the War on Terror

by Victor Davis Hanson // PJ Media

In the current tensions with the Islamic World, pundits bandy about received wisdom that in fact is often ignorance. Here are a few examples.
1)  The solution of radical Islam must come from within Islam.
Perhaps it could. It would be nice to see the advice of General Sisi of Egypt [1] take root among the Islamic street. It would have been nice had the Arab Spring resulted in constitutional republics from North Africa to Syria. It would be nice if an all-Muslim force took on and defeated the Islamic State. It would be nice if Iran suddenly stopped stonings and Saudi Arabia ceased public whippings. It would be nice if Muslims dropped the death penalty for apostates.
Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that any of these scenarios is soon likely. Nor is there much historical support for autocracies and totalitarian belief systems collapsing entirely from within. Hitler was popular enough among Germans until the disaster of Stalingrad [2]. The Soviet Union only imploded under the pressures of the Cold War [3]. Mussolini was a popular dictator — until Italy’s losses in World War II eroded his support. The Japanese emperor only was willing to end the rule of his militarists when Tokyo went up in flames and the U.S. threatened more Hiroshimas. Only the collapse of the Soviet Union and its bloc pulled the plug on the global terrorism of the 1980s.
Until Muslims themselves begin to sense unpleasantness from the crimes of radical Islam, there is little likelihood of Islamism eroding. Were France to deny visas to any citizens of a country it deemed a terrorist sponsor, or to deport French residents that support terrorism, while weeding out terrorist cells, then gradually Muslims in France would wish to disassociate themselves from the terrorists in their midst. If the U.S. adopted a policy that it would have no formal relations with countries that behead or stone, Islamists might take note.
2) The vast majority of Muslims renounce terror.
True, current polls attest that grassroots support for Islamic terror is eroding among Muslim nations, largely because of the violence in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere that is making life miserable for Muslims themselves.
But if even only 10% of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims favor radical Islamists, the resulting 160-million core of supporters is quite large enough to offer needed support. Again, by 1945 most Germans would have polled their opposition to Hitler. But that fact was largely meaningless given the absence of action against the Nazi hierarchy.
In truth, the majority of Muslims may oppose Muslim-inspired violence in their homelands, but will do so abroad only if radical Islam diminishes the influence and prestige of Muslims. If terrorism does not, and instead another charismatic bin Laden wins the sort of fear abroad and popularity at home (cf. his popularity ratings in some Muslim countries circa 2002), then it matters little that most Muslims themselves are not actual terrorists — any more than the fact that most Russians were not members of the Communist Party or Germans members of the Nazi Party. Likewise, the idea that Muslims are the greatest victims of Muslim-inspired terrorism is not ipso facto necessarily significant. Stalin killed far more Russians than did Hitler. That Germans suffered firsthand from the evils of National Socialism was no guarantee that they might act to stop it. Mao was the greatest killer of Chinese in history; but that fact hardly meant that Chinese  would rise up against him.
3) There is no military solution to radical Islam.
Yes and no. The truth is that military action is neutral: valuable when successful, and counter-productive when not. In 2003, there were few terrorists in Iraq. In 2006, there were lots. Then in 2011, there were few. Then, in 2014, there were lots again [4]. The common denominator is not the presence or absence of U.S. troops, but the fact that in 2003 and 2011 the U.S. military enjoyed success and had either killed, routed, or awed Islamists; in 2006 and 2014 the U.S. military was considered either impotent or irrelevant. U.S. military force is counter-productive when used to little purpose and ineffectively. It is invaluable when it is focused and used successfully. If the U.S. bombing campaign against the Islamic State were overwhelming and devastating Islamic state territories, it would matter. Leaving a Western country to join the jihad in Syria would be considered synonymous with being vaporized, and the U.S. would find itself with far fewer enemies and far more allies.  Otherwise, sort of bombing, sort of not will have little positive effects, and may do more harm than good.
4) Reaching out to Islam reduces terrorism.
It can. No one wants to gratuitously incite Muslims. But the fact that Mediterranean food and Korans were available in Guantanamo [5] did not mean that released terrorists were appreciative of that fact or that the world no longer considered the facility objectionable. Obama’s name, paternal lineage, apologies and euphemisms have neither raised U.S. popularity in the Middle East nor undermined the Islamic State.
The 2009 Obama Cairo speech went nowhere. Blaming the filmmaker Nakoula Nakoula for Benghazi [6] did not make the Tsarnaev brothers reconsider their attack at the Boston Marathon. The use of “workplace violence” and declarations that the Muslim Brotherhood is secular or that jihad is a legitimate religious tenet has not reduced Islamic anger at the U.S.
The Kouachi brothers did not care much that under Obama Muslim outreach has become a promised top agenda at NASA. Backing off from a red line in Syria did not reassure the Middle East that the United States was not trigger-happy. Had Obama defiantly told the UN that Nakoula Nakoula had a perfect right to be obnoxious while on U.S. soil, or had the Tsarnaev family long ago been denied entry into the United States, then Islamic terrorists might at least have had more respect for their intended victims.  Current American euphemisms are considered by terrorists as proof of weakness and probably as provocative as would be unnecessary slanderous language.
The best policy is to speak softly and accurately, to carry a large stick, and to display little interest in what our enemies think of our own use of language. The lesson of Charlie Hebdo so far is that the French do not care that radical Islamists were offended and so plan to show the cartoons any way they please. If they stay the course, there will eventually be fewer attacks; if they back off, there will be more.
5) We need to listen to Muslim complaints.
No more than we do to any other group’s complaints. Greeks are not blowing people up over a divided Nicosia. Germans are not producing terrorists eager to reclaim East Prussia, after the mass ethnic cleansings of 1945. Muslims are not targeting Turks because Ottoman colonial rule in the Middle East was particularly brutal. Latin Americans are not slaughtering Spaniards for the excesses of Spanish imperial colonialism.
Christians are not offended that Jesus is Jesus and not referenced as the Messiah Jesus in the manner of the Prophet Mohammed. The Muslim community has been constructed in the West as a special entity deserving of politically correct sensitivity, in the manner of privileged groups on campus that continuously suffer from psychodramatic “micro-aggressions.” That Muslims abroad and in the West practice gender separation at religious services or are intolerant of homosexuals wins greater exemption from the Left than a Tea Party rally.  If the West were to treat satire, parody and caricature of Islam in the fashion of other religions, then eventually the terrorists would learn there is no advantage in killing those with whom they disagree. Once Westerners treat Islam as they do any other religion, then the Islamist provocateurs will be overwhelmed with perceived slights to the point that they are no longer slights. The Muslim world needs to learn reciprocity: that building a mosque at Ground Zero or in Florence, Italy, is no more or no less provocative than building a cathedral in Istanbul, Riyadh, or Teheran.
1] General Sisi of Egypt: http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2015/01/06/blockbuster-story-spiked/
[2] until the disaster of Stalingrad: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2005/06/17/the-white-rose/
[3] the pressures of the Cold War: http://vpostrel.com/blog/reagan-vs-communism-and-conventional-wisdom
[4] Then, in 2014, there were lots again: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/05/01/no-white-house-guidance/
[5] were available in Guantanamo: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0910/steyn092710.php3#.VLwYhC6VmHs
[6] Nakoula Nakoula for Benghazi: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/01/17/hillary-and-charlie-hebdo/
[7] It’s a War of the Gods: http://pjmedia.com/blog/its-a-war-of-the-gods/

quarta-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2015

Os "Coelhos" do Papa Francisco.

Acho que o Papa Francisco usou palavras muito chulas para se referir ao frutos mais divinos de um casamento. Parece coisa de gente sem formação, ignorante, dizer que os católicos "não devem ter filhos como os coelhos". Na boca de um Papa ficou um lixo só. Se ele queria dizer a Igreja Católica também defende a paternidade responsável, junto como o Humanae Vitae, não precisava usar tal linguagem. Às vezes, eu acho que Francisco se empolga demais na frente de câmeras e repórteres.

Mas vejamos um belíssimo depoimento sobre filhos no casamento. Espero que saibam inglês, não vou estragar o depoimento com uma tradução feita às pressas. O texto saiu no jornal The National Catholic Register.

The Baby Promise


I remember it clearly.  I remember the day my future wife and I had the conversation about children.

She asked me, "How many children do you want to have?"

Me, being me, answered.  "Who cares?  Who cares how many children I want?"

My wife, already on her way to sainthood for choosing the cross that is me, said, "I mean, what do you think a good size family is?"

"A good size?  Sixteen.  That is a really good size."

"Why are you being a pain?  You know what I mean."

"Yes, I know what you mean.  I am just trying to make a point.  I don't know what our optimal family size is, but I am very certain that God does.  Let me put it to you this way.  When it comes to children, I make you this simple promise.  I will never say no to you and I will never say no to God."

My wife made me the same promise.  We were not naive wild-eyed Catholics out to prove a point. My wife had all the same concerns most women do.  How many can I handle?  How many can my body handle?  What about money?  Will I have to quit my job?  And so on.  And we discussed all these things on days when I wasn't being jerky. We discussed it.  We thought about it. And we prayed on it.  In the end, we simply just put the number in God's hands.

We didn't get married until we were into our thirties and after our first, sometimes we were a little overwhelmed.  But we kept our promise to each other and put our trust in God.

After our second, truth is, sometimes we were a little overwhelmed. But we kept our promise to each other and put our trust in God.

After our third, we were mostly overwhelmed.  My wife quit her job.  Having three all still little was tough on my wife.  Money was tight.  We just weren't sure how we could swing another. But we kept our promise to each other and put our trust in God.

Heck, we are outnumbered and broke anyway.  So we kept our promise to each other and put our trust in God.  People, society, everyone told us to be done.  Sure, we heard all the jokes.  But we promised and we trusted.

But we also faced tough choices.  We faced health issues that caused us to evaluate everything.  But we always kept our promise to each other and put our trust in God.

In all we had 5 children in 7 years.  My wife jokes that if I had said 5 children in 7 years during that initial conversation, she would have had a heart attack.  But what did we know about what we could handle?  So we decided not to figure it out.

So now we are past the baby years and my wife's biggest lament?  I wish we met earlier so we could have had more babies.

I have many regrets in life as we all do.  But the single best thing I ever did was make and keep that promise to my wife