sábado, 31 de janeiro de 2015

Al-Qaeda declara: França é agora Inimigo No 1 e Não EUA.

Terroristas islâmicos da al-Qaeda dizem que os Estados Unidos estão muito fracos, com o governo Obama, então agora o inimigo número um é a França.

Como entender o raciocínio dos terroristas? Os caras matam cidadãos franceses, aterrorizam o País, e a culpa é das vítimas, que merecem ainda mais serem mortas. E como os Estados Unidos ficaram mansinhos, fraquinhos, não fazem mais guerra, perderão status.

Como disse o Padre Samir, o símbolo do Islã (visto inclusive nas bandeiras de países islâmicos, como Arábia Saudita) é a espada. A ideologia islâmica só entende e só respeita a guerra e quem faz guerra.

E tem gente que acha que basta uma conversa ou uma graninha para acalmar este pessoal.

Vejam texto da France Press (AFP).

Qaeda in Yemen says France top enemy

Dubai (AFP) - The ideological leader of Yemen-based Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) said Friday that France had surpassed the United States as the top enemy of Islam.
US intelligence agencies consider AQAP to be the most dangerous branch of the jihadist network. With the "weakening" of the United States in recent years, France has replaced America in the "war on Islam," Ibrahim al-Rubaish said in an audio message published by AQAP's media arm on YouTube.
One of the group's ideologues, Nasser bin Ali al-Ansi, has claimed in a video that AQAP was behind the January 7 attack on French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo that left 12 people dead.
Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published by the magazine have angered many Muslims.
Western governments say it remains unclear if AQAP directly orchestrated the attack on the weekly, although they do believe one or both of the attackers, brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi, spent time with jihadists in Yemen.
AQAP was formed in 2009 after a merger between militants in Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Rubaish on Friday urged attacks on the West, singling out France.
He also called on Muslims to target, "without consulting anyone", those who mock the Muslim prophet.
AQAP has a track record of launching attacks far from its base in Yemen, including an attempt to blow up an American airliner over Michigan on Christmas Day in 2009.
The group's English-language propaganda publication had urged extremists to carry out attacks abroad, naming Charlie Hebdo's editor-in-chief Stephane Charbonnier among a list of targets.
Bom, não custa lembrar que os Cruzados eram chamados de Francos pelos muçulmanos, na época em que a França defendia o cristianismo. 
Salve São Rei Luís IX.

sexta-feira, 30 de janeiro de 2015

Nigéria: 1.000 Igrejas Cristãs Destruídas e Eleições podem piorar.

Fora as matanças (foto),  já são 1.000 igrejas cristãs destruídas na Nigéria pelo grupo terrorista islâmico Boko Haram. E o que acontecerá se o muçulmano Muhammadu Buhari ganhar as eleições presidenciais do próximo mês?

Nas eleições de 2011, Buhari perdeu e com isso muitas igrejas cristãs foram destruídas e cristãos foram mortos violentamente.

O que nossos líderes cristãos (políticos e religiosos) estão fazendo que não entram em ação para proteger os cristãos de genocídio?

17 franceses mortos pelo Islã valem quantos nigerianos?

Vejam este relato de Raymond Ibrahim sobre o que acontece na Nigéria.

1,000 CHURCHES DESTROYED! Fear of More Muslim Attacks on Christianity Escalate During Nigerian Election

quinta-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2015

Sexo é Diferente - A Importância Moral do Sexo (filósofo Ed. Feser)

O sempre brilhante Edward Feser escreveu sobre a importância moral do sexo, explicando por que sexo tem lugar de destaque na ética humana. É a parte 1 do texto.

Eu já mencionei aqui Edward Feser. O livro dele The Last Superstition é um dos melhores livros que li na vida. Recomendo que todos comprem qualquer livro de Feser e sigam o blog dele.

Aqui vai apenas parte da Parte 1 do que ele escreveu sobre sexo. Vejam o modo didático que ele escreve.

What's the Deal with sex? (Part. 1)
By Edward Feser

In the second edition of his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer writes:

[T]he first thing to say about ethics is that it is not a set of prohibitions particularly concerned with sex.  Even in the era of AIDS,sex raises no unique moral issues at all.  Decisions about sex may involve considerations of honesty, concern for others, prudence, and so on, but there is nothing special about sex in this respect, for the same could be said of decisions about driving a car. (p. 2, emphasis added)

I have long regarded this as one of the most imbecilic things any philosopher has ever said.  That sex has special moral significance, indeed tremendous moral significance, is blindingly obvious.  That is why all of the world religions, and major thinkers from Plato to Augustine to Aquinas to Kant to Freud, have regarded sex as having tremendous moral significance.  Nor do you have to agree with the specific teachings of any of these religions or thinkers to see that it has tremendous moral significance.  Indeed, you don’t necessarily have to take any particular stand on any of the usual “hot button” issues -- abortion, extramarital sex, homosexuality, contraception, etc. -- to see that it has special significance.  What takes real effort is getting yourself not to see the unique significance of sex.  That takes ideological thinking, intellectual dishonesty and slovenliness, or just plain moral obtuseness -- or all of the above, as in the case of “ethicists” like Singer.

There are at least three respects in which sex has special moral significance, and manifestly so:

1. Sex is the means by which new people are made.  Now, how we treat people, especially in matters of life and death, obviously has moral significance.  Indeed, ethics is largely (even if not entirely) concerned with how we treat other people.  So, since sex is the way new people come into being in the first place, it obviously has special moral significance.  Moreover, no one denies that we have special moral responsibilities toward our immediate family members, and especially children.  But the new people who we bring about through sex are, of course, precisely our children.  Hence sex is very morally significant indeed.

Of course, some people deny that new people are directly brought into being by sex.  For example, defenders of abortion often claim that embryos and even fetuses are not really persons but only “potential persons.”  Naturally, I disagree with this.  Embryos and fetuses are not “potential persons”; rather they are persons, but persons who have not yet realized certain of their key potentials.  But for present purposes this is not a debate that needs to be resolved.  Even people who make claims of the sort in question admit that abortion raises serious moral issues that the defender of abortion has to deal with.  


2. Sex is the means by which we are completed qua men and women.  Needless to say, a person’s sexual organs require those of another human being of the opposite sex if they are to fulfill their biological function.  In that sense we are incomplete without sex.  But it’s more than just plumbing or physiology.  Most people, for at least a significant portion of their lives, will feel frustrated and unfulfilled if they are unable to have the sort of romantic relationship with another person which has sex as its natural concomitant.  As I argued on natural law grounds in an earlier post, our psychology, no less than our physiology, is naturally “directed toward” another human being as the end required for its completion.  As I also there argued, this sexual psychology forms a continuum, from (to borrow some terminology from C. S. Lewis) mere Venus or basic sexual desire at one end to Eros or full-on romantic longing at the other. 

Of course, there are exceptions.  There are people who forsake such relationships because they are called to a higher state of the sort represented by the priesthood or religious life.  Precisely because the good is a higher good, the person so called is able to overcome the frustration that might otherwise attend such forsaking.  There are also some people who simply lack any significant sexual or romantic desires in the first place.  But in the typical case, human beings will be frustrated by the lack of a sexual relationship with another human being.

Now of course, we traditional natural law types maintain that such a relationship ought to exist only in the context of marriage, and also (as discussed in another earlier post) that the natural end toward which human sexual psychology is directed is a human being of the opposite sex, rather than merely “a person” in the abstract.  But once again, for present purposes, you needn’t agree with all that.  The book of Genesis characterizes our sexual incompleteness in decidedly heterosexual terms.  The myth of Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposiumfamously portrays it in a much more freewheeling way.  But both testify to the antiquity of the idea that a human being needs another human being sexually for his or her completion.  Advocates of “same-sex marriage” testify to this need as well to the extent that they defend “same-sex marriage” in the name of romantic love and personal fulfillment. 

Failure to succeed in romantic relationships can be not only frustrating in itself, but can affect a person’s sense of self-worth, as can any indication that one simply lacks the capacity to attract or satisfy a lover.  Thus, to belittle a person’s romantic feelings or sexual advances, or to disparage his or her sexual performance or attractiveness to the opposite sex, are all actions considered especially cruel and humiliating.  The presence of a sexual aspect to other harms and misfortunes also makes them much harder to bear.  Adultery is considered a far deeper betrayal than any mere breach of contract.  Rape and child molestation are far more cruel and psychologically scarring than a non-sexual assault.  Exposure of one’s private sexual foibles is regarded as far more humiliating than the disclosure of financial improprieties or other crimes. 

3. Sex is that area of human life in which the animal side of our nature most relentlessly fights against the rational side of our nature.  Sexual pleasure is the most intense of pleasures.  The reasons for this have to do with the considerations raised in the first two points.  Sex is necessary for the generation of new human beings, but generating new human beings imposes on us enormous costs and responsibilities which we are very reluctant to take on.  Nature has thus made sex so extremely pleasurable that people will engage in it anyway, despite its propensity to generate new people for whom they will have to take responsibility.  Sex is also that act which consummates, in the most physically and emotionally intimate or unifying way possible, those romantic relationships in which we seek to remedy our sense of incompleteness.  This adds a further, psychologically rich layer of pleasure to the act, which greatly enhances what is already intensely pleasurable just at a raw animal level.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the satisfaction this kind of pleasure promises us can lead us to do all sorts of deeply irrational things.  For just a few moments of sexual pleasure, many people will risk damage to their reputations and the breaking up of marriages and families, both their own and those of others.  Sexual or romantic passion can prevent people from seeing that a certain person is simply not a suitable marriage partner or someone with whom to have children.  Romantic and sexual jealousy can tempt people to spy on and stalk the object of their affections, or even to commit murder.  The quest for romantic and sexual pleasure can take on a compulsive character.  Hence people become promiscuous, or addicted to pornography, or prone to excessive romantic fantasizing, constantly falling in and out of love.  And of course there are various less serious ways in which romantic love or the desire for sex can lead us to act in ways we would otherwise regard as obviously foolish (ill-considered attempts to impress someone to whom one is attracted, crude sexual advances, etc.).

There is another way in which sex can lead us to act irrationally.  We can be so troubled by its tendency to make us act irrationally that weoverreact to its potential dangers.  Horrified by the extremes to which some people go in the pursuit of sexual pleasure, other people sometimes tend toward the opposite extreme.  They might prudishly judge that all sexual pleasure is of its nature suspect and better avoided entirely, or at least as far as possible, even in marriage.  Even when married, they might scrupulously fret and worry over the minute details of every sexual desire or every aspect of their lovemaking, constantly in a panic over whether they have fallen into sin.  (This is, of course, much less rare a tendency these days than the opposite extreme is.  But judging from some of the oddballs you’ll find pontificating here and there on the internet, and some of the email that shows up occasionally in my combox, it does exist.  Certainly it has existed in a great many people historically.)

Everyone knows all this; once again, you don’t need to agree with traditional natural law theory to see the point.  But it is obvious that this tendency of sex to cloud our reason is of special moral significance.  What it tempts us toward is a kind of vice; naturally, then, there must also be such a thing as virtue where sex is concerned, a sober middle ground that avoids irrational extremes.  Those who reject traditional natural law theory will of course disagree with it about the specific content of virtue where matters of sex are concerned, but it simply defies reason to pretend, as Singer does, that “sex raises no unique moral issues at all.”

Indeed, people who say, in the face of all the obvious evidence, that sex is “no big deal,” thereby merely provide yet a further example of the irrationality to which we are prone in matters of sex.  For this sort of remark is, of course, typically an attempt to rationalize or excuse sexual behavior widely thought to be morally questionable but which the speaker would like to engage in anyway. 

So far I have been appealing to considerations which, as I have said, any reasonable person should agree with, whether or not he accepts everything a natural law theorist or a Catholic moral theologian would maintain vis-à-vis sexual morality.  The point is to show that one needn’t be committed wholesale to traditional sexual morality to see that sex clearly has the kind of moral significance Singer denies it does. 

But even what has been said so far goes a long way toward showing how reasonable traditional sexual morality is.  Catholic moral theology distinguishes three ends or purposes of marriage: the procreation and education of children, the mutual aid of the spouses, and the remedying of concupiscence.  It should be evident that these purposes are aimed precisely at dealing with the three respects in which sex raises special moral problems.  Sex has a propensity to result in the generation of new human beings; marriage functions to secure for these new human beings a stable environment in which their material and spiritual needs can be met.  Our desire for sexual and romantic relationships reflects our sense of being in some deep way incomplete; the institution of marriage, by which we commit ourselves to another person through thick and thin, functions to ensure that we find completion that is stable and substantive rather than ephemeral and superficial.  Sexual desire tempts us to act contrary to reason in ways that threaten to damage both ourselves and others; marriage functions to discipline sexual desire by channeling it in a way that is both socially constructive and conducive to our own best interests.

Obviously, further argumentation would be required to defend the entire range of claims Catholic moral theology and natural law theory would make about sexual morality, but that is not to the present point.  The point is rather that there is simply no basis at all for the view -- by no means unique to Singer -- that “sex raises no unique moral issues at all,” or for the common, tiresome allegation that traditional moralists’ concern with sexual morality reflects mere superstition or prudery. 

Much more can be said about the special moral problems posed by sex, from a specifically Thomistic (and thus inevitably more controversial) point of view.  But that will have to wait for a follow-up post.

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.