<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Culture Jam for Life &#187; Pro-Abortion Media Bias</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/category/pro-abortion-media-bias/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com</link>
	<description>pro-life book coming soon!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:12:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>YouTube Censors Political Thought, Again</title>
		<link>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/07/youtube-censors-political-thought-again/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/07/youtube-censors-political-thought-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:10:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Abortion Media Bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[youtube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/07/youtube-censors-political-thought-again/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[YouTube recently refused to take down pro-terrorist videos, one of the founders stating that just because an opinion is unpopular doesn&#8217;t make it invalid. But freedom of speech isn&#8217;t absolute as any First Amendment scholar will tell you: there are many exceptions, such as libel/slander, copyright, obscenity, etc. That said, the most important kind of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>YouTube recently refused to take down pro-terrorist videos, one of the founders stating that just because an opinion is unpopular doesn&#8217;t make it invalid. But freedom of speech isn&#8217;t absolute as any First Amendment scholar will tell you: there are many exceptions, such as libel/slander, copyright, obscenity, etc. That said, the most important kind of speech protected by the First Amendment is political speech. YouTube is a private company and can censor even free speech that&#8217;s not an exception, BUT they should be chastised and called our for doing so.</p>
<p>LifeNews has an <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lifenews.com/state3369.html">article</a> detailing more censorship of the pro-life message:</p>
<blockquote><p>Detroit, MI (LifeNews.com) &#8212; The popular video sharing web site YouTube is the subject of criticism again for removing a pro-life video exposing abortion. In this new case, YouTube took down a video from Citizens for a Pro-Life Society showing an abortion center that was investigated for illegally dumping medical waste.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/07/youtube-censors-political-thought-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama is a Pro-Abortion Megalomaniac</title>
		<link>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/06/obama-is-a-pro-abortion-megalomaniac/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/06/obama-is-a-pro-abortion-megalomaniac/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infanticide]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Abortion Activists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Abortion Media Bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Abortion Politicians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ignorance of voters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/06/obama-is-a-pro-abortion-megalomaniac/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
We&#8217;ve got a long list of reasons NOT to vote for the pro-abortion extremist Barack Obama, who not only supports killing the unborn but partially born and newborn as well! sick. You may not agree with all of the reasons not to vote for him, but everyone should agree killing innocent human beings is wrong. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/obama_abortion.jpg" alt="obama_abortion.jpg" /></p>
<p>We&#8217;ve got a long list of reasons NOT to vote for the pro-abortion extremist Barack Obama, who not only supports killing the unborn but partially born and newborn as well! sick. You may not agree with all of the reasons not to vote for him, but everyone should agree killing innocent human beings is wrong. Check out the list here: <a href="http://www.culturejamforlife.com/nobama2008/">Reasons NOT to vote for Obama</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/06/obama-is-a-pro-abortion-megalomaniac/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Relevant Magazine and Pro-Abortion Propaganda</title>
		<link>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/02/relevant-magazine-and-pro-abortion-propaganda/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/02/relevant-magazine-and-pro-abortion-propaganda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:42:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Abortion Media Bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Abortion Politicians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[associated press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brian mclaren]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moral relativism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[propaganda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relevant magazine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rob bell]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/02/relevant-magazine-and-pro-abortion-propaganda/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ 
An Open Letter to Relevant Magazine:
Relevant Editorial;
I&#8217;ve written a few online articles for you back when you were first starting.
I am just writing to ask why you use misleading pro-abortion vernacular in your recent issue with the huge mug of Rob Bell on the front cover. You mention the pro-abortion politicans&#8217; stances on abortion as [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/relevant_magazine.jpg" alt="relevant_magazine.jpg" /> </p>
<p>An Open Letter to Relevant Magazine:</p>
<p>Relevant Editorial;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve written a few online articles for you back when you were first starting.</p>
<p>I am just writing to ask why you use misleading pro-abortion vernacular in your recent issue with the huge mug of Rob Bell on the front cover. You mention the pro-abortion politicans&#8217; stances on abortion as &#8220;pro-choice.&#8221; The term &#8220;pro-choice&#8221; was cynically concocted by population control advocates such as Lawrence Lader of the Population Council (and founder of National Abortion Rights Action League) when selling the idea of abortion to the 60&#8217;s feminists, in order to reduce the populations of the poor and minorities. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of NARAL, later became pro-life after &#8220;performing&#8221; thousands of &#8220;abortions&#8221; and detailed all of this in interviews and his book, Hand of God. ALL early feminists, including suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony to Alice Paul Walker were pro-life. They saw abortion as just another way to dehumanize women. Even recently, the husband of the lawyer in the Roe v. Wade case wrote then-President Bill Clinton to legalize the morning after pill in order to kill more poor people (this letter was found in the Clinton presidential library and exposed by Judicial Watch).</p>
<p>The Associated Press style guide, while somewhat biased itself, suggests using &#8220;abortion rights advocate&#8221; to describe pro-abortion politicians and &#8220;anti-abortion&#8221; to describe pro-life politicians. That would be better than using the propagandistic and misleading term, &#8220;pro-choice.&#8221; Pro-choice to do what? Own a slave? You&#8217;d be pro-slavery then, not the simplistic and misleading &#8220;pro-choice.&#8221; It&#8217;s insane that some people who call themselves Christians object to genocide in Darfur then turn the other way and ignore the genocide of abortion, the killing of an innocent, living human being. According to one of your polls, over 50 percent of people think that Christians can be pro-abortion (or for abortion &#8220;rights&#8221; as your magazine put it). That is sickening and evil. Can Christians be for the raping and killing of darfur refugees? No. And they can&#8217;t be for the killing of innocent human beings. I know that was just an unscientific poll and not your writing, but that points to a sad and ignorant culture that doesn&#8217;t know what the euphemism of abortion is or doesn&#8217;t care and is therefore morally vapid.</p>
<p>You call pro-abortion politicians &#8220;pro-choice&#8221; but say that pro-life politicians &#8220;consider themselves pro-life,&#8221; as if they really aren&#8217;t and that&#8217;s their own label. Why add the &#8220;consider&#8221; tag to just the pro-life candidates, as if their label is somehow innacurate but the other one isn&#8217;t? Please be honest in your labeling: pro-life people are against abortion and also infanticide, the killing of newborns and infants, euthanasia, and the killing of embryos for research and experimentation (embryonic stem cell research, which isn&#8217;t needed at all due to recent scientific advancements). In other words, &#8220;pro-life&#8221; is, indeed, an honest description of the position, while &#8220;pro-abortion&#8221; is also honest and much more accurate than the misleading and incomplete &#8220;pro-choice&#8221; mantra.</p>
<p>You feature a hi-res face of Rob Bell, who teaches that the Bible isn&#8217;t really all true (like Mary being a virgin) and other heresies. Bell, adopting the vernacular of 9-11 insider wackos, states that the war in Iraq is &#8220;for oil.&#8221; If it were for oil, then why are we losing billions of dollars because of the war and not making money off the oil? That&#8217;s just pure propaganda. I was against the Iraq War from the start because I was afraid of the sectarian violence that would ensue afterwards: I actually knew what Shiite and Sunni were before this whole mess. But that doesn&#8217;t mean I believe irrational and illogical fantasies about the war being &#8220;for oil.&#8221; Only a truly ignorant person who is not well-read would believe such Michael Moore-style nonsense and misinformation. Just because Rob Bell is extremely popular doesn&#8217;t mean what he is teaching is true. In fact, we should think critically even more as a person gains a huge following. He may have some good points, but be brave and point out where he contradicts the word of God instead of just trying to please men. We should please God.</p>
<p>Since when did Relevant turn so relativist/left wing? Try to read outside of Brian McLaren&#8217;s hip heresies and read something that might challenge you! McLaren has stated that the Bible is just a good story and not literally true, that he is a fan of the people behind the Jesus Seminar (the people who say that Jesus didn&#8217;t literally raise from the dead), and has refused to say that homosexuality is a sin. He puts Christianity on the same level as all religions, basically insinuating Jesus lied when he said he was the Way. He also believes in universalism, which is unbiblical and untrue.</p>
<p>This same issue features an article by Jim Wallis, a left-wing activist who advises pro-abortion politicians such as Howard Dean. He may not be as out there as some, but why only focus on &#8220;hip&#8221; left-wing speakers, many of who contradict the Bible?</p>
<p>The truth is not found inside misleading vernacular or celebrity-driven hysteria. Why not interview deeper thinkers or people who believe in the Word of God? Why focus on Moby, a pro-abortion relativist, and let him complain about the Church, as if he&#8217;s so much better? Yes, the church has problems, but do we need Moby to tell us? Why focus on Rob Bell, who only wants to please man and never offend anyone except Bible-believing Christians, when the gospel itself is offensive to many? &#8220;For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.&#8221; 2nd Timothy 4:3</p>
<p>Chad<br />
Culture Jam for Life<br />
<a href="http://www.culturejamforlife.com/">www.culturejamforlife.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2008/02/relevant-magazine-and-pro-abortion-propaganda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pro-Abortion Hosts of The View Attack Ron Paul</title>
		<link>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2007/12/pro-abortion-hosts-of-the-view-attack-ron-paul/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2007/12/pro-abortion-hosts-of-the-view-attack-ron-paul/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:32:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Abortion Activists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Abortion Media Bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[caitlin moran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro-life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ron paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the view]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whoopi goldberg]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2007/12/pro-abortion-hosts-of-the-view-attack-ron-paul/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
From LifeNews.com, the pro-abortion hosts of The View go after pro-life politician:
Hollywood, CA (LifeNews.com) &#8212; Republican Rep. Ron Paul recently became the first 2008 Republican presidential candidate to make an appearance on The View. Much of his seven minute appearance on the show had to do with the topic of abortion as the pro-abortion hosts [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/whoopi_abortion.jpg" alt="whoopi_abortion.jpg" /></p>
<p>From <a target="_blank" href="http://www.lifenews.com/nb107.html">LifeNews.com</a>, the pro-abortion hosts of The View go after pro-life politician:</p>
<blockquote><p>Hollywood, CA (LifeNews.com) &#8212; Republican Rep. Ron Paul recently became the first 2008 Republican presidential candidate to make an appearance on The View. Much of his seven minute appearance on the show had to do with the topic of abortion as the pro-abortion hosts of the program gave him grief for his pro-life position. Whoopi Goldberg, a Planned Parenthood advisory board member, went after Paul saying that &#8220;nobody makes this decision lightly.&#8221; Yet, as Newsbusters blogger Justin McCarthy observed, co-host Joy Behar occupied most of the segment attacking Paul’s abortion position. &#8220;Though Behar admitted she believes killing a child immediately before birth is &#8216;murder,&#8217; she asked &#8216;what about the first month?&#8217;&#8221; Ron Paul then asked Behar if she would be okay with a law &#8220;that says abortion should be done no later than at six weeks gestation.&#8221; Behar avoided the question claiming she is &#8220;not happy with abortion, period.&#8221; At the end of the segment, wealthy actress Kate Walsh asserts that if Roe is overturned only wealthy women in states that disallow abortions will be able to travel to obtain them. That&#8217;s a small price to pay, counters Paul, for the reduction in partial-birth abortions, but Walsh doesn&#8217;t respond.</p></blockquote>
<p>Whoopi Goldberg said that &#8220;no one makes this decision [to kill an unborn child] lightly,&#8221; and yet she herself has joked about having many abortions. Many pro-abortion people make light of abortion, such as pro-abort comment posters making fun of photos of killed children to the pro-abortion extremist Caitlin Moran, whose <a target="_blank" href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article1645946.ece">doublespeak</a> know no bounds and said, and I quote, &#8220;I’m not being flippant when I say it took me longer to decide what work-tops to have in the kitchen than whether I was prepared to spend the rest of my life being responsible for a further human being.&#8221; Sick and evil.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.culturejamforlife.com/2007/12/pro-abortion-hosts-of-the-view-attack-ron-paul/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
