Yes, as in stupid-thick, that was the inference. This article would be good for a laugh if it wasn't so jaw-droppingly prejudiced. Apparently all the liberals who are rubbing their hands with glee now that they've got "scientific" "evidence" for their arrogant assumptions that they're the most advanced strain of homo sapiens have failed to register the towering irony of Colin Firth's statement:
"I took this on as a fairly frivolous exercise: I just decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who don't agree with me and see what scientists had to say about it and they actually came up with something."
In light of that, several rather cutting remarks about the possibilities of finding scientific proof that progressives are in fact genetically inferior retardates come to mind. . . .
Ah well, not to worry. . . . I'm sure the aforesaid progressives will find a way to screen fetuses for their future political persuasion and eliminate those which are more 'primitive', i.e. conservative. Or they might make one of the criterion for those applying for politically inclined jobs, that the applicant be required to submit information on his DNA that might affect his or her suitability for the job. Do I sound paranoid? Watch the movie Gattaca and then try to laugh at me.
Anyway, I digress. . . . here's the article, in case you missed it before :)
freedomfightergirl
Friday 31 December 2010
Gendercide
Hopefully in future I'll have more statistics to back up this article from The Economist, but here's a good overview of the issue. Thank goodness people are having the courage to voice it. Did no one see this coming when the Chinese government, for example, implemented its one-child policy?
Now imagine that you have had an ultrasound scan; it costs $12, but you can afford that. The scan says the unborn child is a girl. You yourself would prefer a boy; the rest of your family clamours for one. You would never dream of killing a baby daughter, as they do out in the villages. But an abortion seems different. What do you do?
For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son. In China and northern India more than 120 boys are being born for every 100 girls. Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys’ greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.
For those who oppose abortion, this is mass murder. For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (to use Bill Clinton’s phrase), a lot depends on the circumstances, but the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic. China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men—“bare branches”, as they are known—as the entire population of young men in America. In any country rootless young males spell trouble; in Asian societies, where marriage and children are the recognised routes into society, single men are almost like outlaws. Crime rates, bride trafficking, sexual violence, even female suicide rates are all rising and will rise further as the lopsided generations reach their maturity (see article).
It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions—aborted, killed, neglected to death. In 1990 an Indian economist, Amartya Sen, put the number at 100m; the toll is higher now. The crumb of comfort is that countries can mitigate the hurt, and that one, South Korea, has shown the worst can be avoided. Others need to learn from it if they are to stop the carnage.
Wealth does not stop it. Taiwan and Singapore have open, rich economies. Within China and India the areas with the worst sex ratios are the richest, best-educated ones. And China’s one-child policy can only be part of the problem, given that so many other countries are affected.
In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus. In societies where four or six children were common, a boy would almost certainly come along eventually; son preference did not need to exist at the expense of daughters. But now couples want two children—or, as in China, are allowed only one—they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son. That is why sex ratios are most distorted in the modern, open parts of China and India. It is also why ratios are more skewed after the first child: parents may accept a daughter first time round but will do anything to ensure their next—and probably last—child is a boy. The boy-girl ratio is above 200 for a third child in some places.
But this happened when South Korea was rich. If China or India—with incomes one-quarter and one-tenth Korea’s levels—wait until they are as wealthy, many generations will pass. To speed up change, they need to take actions that are in their own interests anyway. Most obviously China should scrap the one-child policy. The country’s leaders will resist this because they fear population growth; they also dismiss Western concerns about human rights. But the one-child limit is no longer needed to reduce fertility (if it ever was: other East Asian countries reduced the pressure on the population as much as China). And it massively distorts the country’s sex ratio, with devastating results. President Hu Jintao says that creating “a harmonious society” is his guiding principle; it cannot be achieved while a policy so profoundly perverts family life.
And all countries need to raise the value of girls. They should encourage female education; abolish laws and customs that prevent daughters inheriting property; make examples of hospitals and clinics with impossible sex ratios; get women engaged in public life—using everything from television newsreaders to women traffic police. Mao Zedong said “women hold up half the sky.” The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down.
For true gender equality, including before birth,
freedomfightergirl
Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising
IMAGINE you are one half of a young couple expecting your first child in a fast-growing, poor country. You are part of the new middle class; your income is rising; you want a small family. But traditional mores hold sway around you, most important in the preference for sons over daughters. Perhaps hard physical labour is still needed for the family to make its living. Perhaps only sons may inherit land. Perhaps a daughter is deemed to join another family on marriage and you want someone to care for you when you are old. Perhaps she needs a dowry.Now imagine that you have had an ultrasound scan; it costs $12, but you can afford that. The scan says the unborn child is a girl. You yourself would prefer a boy; the rest of your family clamours for one. You would never dream of killing a baby daughter, as they do out in the villages. But an abortion seems different. What do you do?
For millions of couples, the answer is: abort the daughter, try for a son. In China and northern India more than 120 boys are being born for every 100 girls. Nature dictates that slightly more males are born than females to offset boys’ greater susceptibility to infant disease. But nothing on this scale.
For those who oppose abortion, this is mass murder. For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” (to use Bill Clinton’s phrase), a lot depends on the circumstances, but the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic. China alone stands to have as many unmarried young men—“bare branches”, as they are known—as the entire population of young men in America. In any country rootless young males spell trouble; in Asian societies, where marriage and children are the recognised routes into society, single men are almost like outlaws. Crime rates, bride trafficking, sexual violence, even female suicide rates are all rising and will rise further as the lopsided generations reach their maturity (see article).
It is no exaggeration to call this gendercide. Women are missing in their millions—aborted, killed, neglected to death. In 1990 an Indian economist, Amartya Sen, put the number at 100m; the toll is higher now. The crumb of comfort is that countries can mitigate the hurt, and that one, South Korea, has shown the worst can be avoided. Others need to learn from it if they are to stop the carnage.
The dearth and death of little sisters
Most people know China and northern India have unnaturally large numbers of boys. But few appreciate how bad the problem is, or that it is rising. In China the imbalance between the sexes was 108 boys to 100 girls for the generation born in the late 1980s; for the generation of the early 2000s, it was 124 to 100. In some Chinese provinces the ratio is an unprecedented 130 to 100. The destruction is worst in China but has spread far beyond. Other East Asian countries, including Taiwan and Singapore, former communist states in the western Balkans and the Caucasus, and even sections of America’s population (Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example): all these have distorted sex ratios. Gendercide exists on almost every continent. It affects rich and poor; educated and illiterate; Hindu, Muslim, Confucian and Christian alike.Wealth does not stop it. Taiwan and Singapore have open, rich economies. Within China and India the areas with the worst sex ratios are the richest, best-educated ones. And China’s one-child policy can only be part of the problem, given that so many other countries are affected.
In fact the destruction of baby girls is a product of three forces: the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for smaller families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus. In societies where four or six children were common, a boy would almost certainly come along eventually; son preference did not need to exist at the expense of daughters. But now couples want two children—or, as in China, are allowed only one—they will sacrifice unborn daughters to their pursuit of a son. That is why sex ratios are most distorted in the modern, open parts of China and India. It is also why ratios are more skewed after the first child: parents may accept a daughter first time round but will do anything to ensure their next—and probably last—child is a boy. The boy-girl ratio is above 200 for a third child in some places.
How to stop half the sky crashing down
Baby girls are thus victims of a malign combination of ancient prejudice and modern preferences for small families. Only one country has managed to change this pattern. In the 1990s South Korea had a sex ratio almost as skewed as China’s. Now, it is heading towards normality. It has achieved this not deliberately, but because the culture changed. Female education, anti-discrimination suits and equal-rights rulings made son preference seem old-fashioned and unnecessary. The forces of modernity first exacerbated prejudice—then overwhelmed it.But this happened when South Korea was rich. If China or India—with incomes one-quarter and one-tenth Korea’s levels—wait until they are as wealthy, many generations will pass. To speed up change, they need to take actions that are in their own interests anyway. Most obviously China should scrap the one-child policy. The country’s leaders will resist this because they fear population growth; they also dismiss Western concerns about human rights. But the one-child limit is no longer needed to reduce fertility (if it ever was: other East Asian countries reduced the pressure on the population as much as China). And it massively distorts the country’s sex ratio, with devastating results. President Hu Jintao says that creating “a harmonious society” is his guiding principle; it cannot be achieved while a policy so profoundly perverts family life.
And all countries need to raise the value of girls. They should encourage female education; abolish laws and customs that prevent daughters inheriting property; make examples of hospitals and clinics with impossible sex ratios; get women engaged in public life—using everything from television newsreaders to women traffic police. Mao Zedong said “women hold up half the sky.” The world needs to do more to prevent a gendercide that will have the sky crashing down.
For true gender equality, including before birth,
freedomfightergirl
Monday 27 December 2010
What MTV Doesn't Tell You :)
Well YAY!! Occasionally these kind of studies do come out and they're always such a pleasure (no innuendo intended!) Just a bit more confirmation that abstinence isn't as stupid as it seems!
"It might be a sweet temptation to resist, but delaying sex before marriage can lead to a long lasting relationship, according to an intriguing new study by researchers at Brigham Young University, U.S.
Researchers found that couples who waited until they were married to have sex shared stronger relationship than those who involved in sex much early before their marriage...." read the rest here...
freedomfightergirl :)
Researchers found that couples who waited until they were married to have sex shared stronger relationship than those who involved in sex much early before their marriage...." read the rest here...
Sunday 26 December 2010
I'm Back!
I was shocked when I logged on and realised that I haven't posted for about six months!! I guess as far as content for my posts go, I've been all research and no regurgitation, if that makes sense. I thought I'd start by posting the material that's been the most helpful for me in my research into abortion and the surrounding issues. Below is one of my heroes, Jill Stanek, and some other material I've come across lately. Be motivated. . . .
Jill Stanek on The O'Reilly Factor
In a strange way, it made me so grateful to see O'Reilly's emotional reaction. It is so rare to see someone in the media who, when faced with the facts, is actually open to facing the truth. . . . so often the reaction is just defensiveness and more bullshit.
I've got to admit the next one makes me nauseous- it did when I first saw it and it still does. As I watch it, I feel that it gets to the crux of the whole matter. I feel sick when I see the host's hard, arrogant face, so sure of her moral superiority; I feel sick when I see "pro-lifers" killing people (what an irony) and living out their deadly moral hypocrisy. I feel sick when I look into LeRoy Carhart's face and see the deadness, hear the monotone voice. He looks so tired, tired of everything, weary of life. His face, as I see it, manifests the end-point of evil: a dreary, lifeless boredom. No animation, insight, spark, or light; no conviction, pleasure or satisfaction; just a dreary will to continue what he sees as a necessary task and a moral imperative. Evil is boredom, drudgery, grey monotony; and for me Dr Carhart is a walking, living example of it.
60 Minutes Abortion Documentary Pt 1
60 Minutes Abortion Documentary Pt 2
Next I have a link to a great website, Operation Rescue. Here is a story of one of LeRoy Carhart's victims. On a larger scale, this innocent girl is a victim of the bestiality of our society. Read it and weep; for her and for us, that this bloodguilt is on all of us.
In Memory of Christin Gilbert
For sanity, for humanity and compassion.
freedomfightergirl xx
Jill Stanek on The O'Reilly Factor
In a strange way, it made me so grateful to see O'Reilly's emotional reaction. It is so rare to see someone in the media who, when faced with the facts, is actually open to facing the truth. . . . so often the reaction is just defensiveness and more bullshit.
I've got to admit the next one makes me nauseous- it did when I first saw it and it still does. As I watch it, I feel that it gets to the crux of the whole matter. I feel sick when I see the host's hard, arrogant face, so sure of her moral superiority; I feel sick when I see "pro-lifers" killing people (what an irony) and living out their deadly moral hypocrisy. I feel sick when I look into LeRoy Carhart's face and see the deadness, hear the monotone voice. He looks so tired, tired of everything, weary of life. His face, as I see it, manifests the end-point of evil: a dreary, lifeless boredom. No animation, insight, spark, or light; no conviction, pleasure or satisfaction; just a dreary will to continue what he sees as a necessary task and a moral imperative. Evil is boredom, drudgery, grey monotony; and for me Dr Carhart is a walking, living example of it.
60 Minutes Abortion Documentary Pt 1
60 Minutes Abortion Documentary Pt 2
Next I have a link to a great website, Operation Rescue. Here is a story of one of LeRoy Carhart's victims. On a larger scale, this innocent girl is a victim of the bestiality of our society. Read it and weep; for her and for us, that this bloodguilt is on all of us.
In Memory of Christin Gilbert
For sanity, for humanity and compassion.
freedomfightergirl xx
Saturday 31 July 2010
Awesomeness
This is freaking amazing!! I love it when people think outside the box for their music videos, instead of using the stock singing to the camera/hyper camera work/booty shaking stuff. This is so clever, just fascinating to watch. My favourite part is when she dives into the sea. Oh, and the t-shirt birds flying past.
Enjoy!
freedomfightergirl
Enjoy!
freedomfightergirl
The Undesirables
It's time for a rant.
What's really been getting me lately is the pro-abortion logic that "it's better not to give birth if the pregnancy is unwanted".
First, just to clarify, it's a child. It's a baby, with a unique DNA, a heartbeat, fingerprints, etc etc. Calling it a pregnancy makes it sound like an appendage of the woman's body (or worse, some kind of abnormal condition, or disease). Yes, it's inside her, but it's not her. It's a unique person.
And "choosing not to give birth" is such a cowardly euphemism. The woman is going to give birth. She just has to choose whether to give birth to a fully grown, live child, or to have the partially grown infant vacuumed out and flushed down the toilet. So the choice is not whether to give birth or not, it's whether to give birth to a live infant or a dead one.
So now that that's clarified, what the above sentence really means is "it's better to kill the child if it's unwanted". A little less palatable, but more to the point.
"Unwanted". Ah, what a word. It reminds me a bit of Nazi Germany, when it became convenient to label certain sectors of society "undesirables". These people (or sub-people, if you like), were a drag on society. They cost money. They were inconvenient. They were unplanned nuisances, blots on the face of an ever-more-perfect society. So they were disposed of, quietly, discreetly, in special processing centres designed for that very purpose. Sound familiar? And no, they weren't killed. Gosh, what a nasty word- that makes it sound like murder! See, these individuals were, well, not as useful as you and I. They didn't contribute anything to society. They shouldn't really have been here in the first place. They were scientifically proven to be inferior. So it's really a red herring to say that they were killed. It's better to use words like 'removed', 'cleansed', 'eliminated' or 'terminated'. That makes it sound so much more palatable.
When will people wake up? When will we realise what is happening here? From the moment we label certain parts of society as less valuable than others, from the moment we begin to prune the tree of society, it's only a matter of time until the genocide begins. Are you thinking that I sound like an alarmist nutcase? Look at history. Women. Slaves. Conquered nations. People with a certain colour of skin. Jews. Gypsies. Gays. Children. Unborn babies. They were all deemed less valuable, just a little bit less human, and they died.
I could go on, but I won't. Except for this- I will not sit down and let this happen. I'm so tired of all the lies and bullshitting going on, while babies are dying. They are not unwanted. I want them, and so do many others.
Say what you like, but never say they are unwanted.
For love, life and truth,
freedomfightergirl
Wednesday 7 July 2010
Chris Rock on Abortion
Chris Rock has been doing stand up comedy, and what more obvious choice for a humorous topic than....abortion! I wish I could say I found it funny, but instead I found it more along the lines of nausea-inducing. But your sense of humour may differ. If you can find something funny here, more power to you.
But all sarcasm aside, I have to admit I was horrified that anyone would laugh at this stuff. Women laughing at crude and demeaning statements toward their own sex. Not to mention the callous indifference toward the life of the baby. Notice that Chris doesn't contest the fact that it is a baby.
The only way this is funny is that it is culturally acceptable to be willfully ignorant of the reality that babies are human people. If you fully accept that reality, then this comedy becomes, well, horrifying. It says a lot about our society that it is acceptable for anyone, anywhere, to joke about weighing up whether to discard a human life as casually as if voting them off Survivor.
For the sacredness of all human life. Love and peace,
freedomfightergirl
But all sarcasm aside, I have to admit I was horrified that anyone would laugh at this stuff. Women laughing at crude and demeaning statements toward their own sex. Not to mention the callous indifference toward the life of the baby. Notice that Chris doesn't contest the fact that it is a baby.
The only way this is funny is that it is culturally acceptable to be willfully ignorant of the reality that babies are human people. If you fully accept that reality, then this comedy becomes, well, horrifying. It says a lot about our society that it is acceptable for anyone, anywhere, to joke about weighing up whether to discard a human life as casually as if voting them off Survivor.
For the sacredness of all human life. Love and peace,
freedomfightergirl
NARAL, pregnancy centres and "misleading advertising"
A little update from Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL (which stands for National Abortion Rights Action League, if memory serves me correctly.) NARAL wants pro-life pregnancy centers removed from online directories like Superpages and Yellow. Freedom of speech, anyone? The excuse is, of course, that these "anti-choice" pregnancy centers are coercing women with false information about abortions. They're calling it "advertising fraud against women". Hmm, sounds to me more like an attempt to eliminate any threat to their interests. Anyway, like I've said before, don't take my word for it- here are some pertinent links.
http://www.jillstanek.com/pregnancy-care-centers/naral-tells-yellow-pages-and-s.html
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2010/06/stop-false-anti.html
[Edit: NARAL originally stood for National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, then changed to National Abortion Rights Action League, and is now National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.]
Peace,
freedomfightergirl
http://www.jillstanek.com/pregnancy-care-centers/naral-tells-yellow-pages-and-s.html
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2010/06/stop-false-anti.html
[Edit: NARAL originally stood for National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, then changed to National Abortion Rights Action League, and is now National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.]
Peace,
freedomfightergirl
Friday 25 June 2010
Judging Sexual Sadists
Well, this is interesting.
On 4 Feb 2010, President Obama nominated Judge Robert Chatigny to fill one of four vacancies in the American Court of Appeals (the last line of review before the Supreme Court). Upon his nomination there was considerable protest because, apparently, Judge Chatigny is sympathetic toward serial rapists.
What??
According to AFJ.com, Obama considers Chatigny a "first-rate public servant" with a "first-class legal mind" and has "full confidence in [his] ability, integrity and independence" (italics mine).
In 2005, Chatigny supported the defense of serial killer Michael Ross, who admitted to the rape and murder of eight young women. If you need any more evidence that this guy was sick, this is a quote from him on the documentary Serial Killers: “Serial killers like to strangle their victims, and that is, I guess, the most common form of killing because there is more of a connection, it’s more real, and it’s not as quick.” Judge Chatigny supported Ross and actually claimed that his "sexual sadism" was a "mitigating factor" and that Ross was a victim of his own sadism, which Chatigny claimed was a mental illness and therefore outside Ross's control. He said, “[Ross] never should have been convicted. Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death.” Chatigny also gained notoriety for threatening the opposition's lawyer, saying “You better be prepared to deal with me. ... I’ll have your law license.”
Chatigny has judged twelve child pornography cases, in each of which he gave a sentence at or below the recommended minimum. He was also co-counsel for Woody Allen in 1993-4 when the film director was prosecuted for reportedly abusing his stepchild. In 2001 Chatigny ruled against sex offender registries (a method of tracking repeat offenders).
I could go on and on, but seriously.... how much more is necessary? Why would Obama nominate this sort of person, no doubt knowing full well the man's record? And have the audacity to call him a person of integrity?
Anyway, you don't have to take my word for it. Read the links below and see for yourself. How is America supposed to function with these sort of twisted people in the judiciary? What does this say about Obama and others in power?
This video is a must see. The interview clips with Ross are unbelievable, truly sick and twisted.
That's all.
-freedomfightergirl
Sources:
http://www.afj.org/assets/resources/nominees/afj-chatigny-report.pdf
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37173
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/26/sexual-sadism-unleaded/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_N._Chatigny
On 4 Feb 2010, President Obama nominated Judge Robert Chatigny to fill one of four vacancies in the American Court of Appeals (the last line of review before the Supreme Court). Upon his nomination there was considerable protest because, apparently, Judge Chatigny is sympathetic toward serial rapists.
What??
According to AFJ.com, Obama considers Chatigny a "first-rate public servant" with a "first-class legal mind" and has "full confidence in [his] ability, integrity and independence" (italics mine).
In 2005, Chatigny supported the defense of serial killer Michael Ross, who admitted to the rape and murder of eight young women. If you need any more evidence that this guy was sick, this is a quote from him on the documentary Serial Killers: “Serial killers like to strangle their victims, and that is, I guess, the most common form of killing because there is more of a connection, it’s more real, and it’s not as quick.” Judge Chatigny supported Ross and actually claimed that his "sexual sadism" was a "mitigating factor" and that Ross was a victim of his own sadism, which Chatigny claimed was a mental illness and therefore outside Ross's control. He said, “[Ross] never should have been convicted. Or if convicted, he never should have been sentenced to death.” Chatigny also gained notoriety for threatening the opposition's lawyer, saying “You better be prepared to deal with me. ... I’ll have your law license.”
Chatigny has judged twelve child pornography cases, in each of which he gave a sentence at or below the recommended minimum. He was also co-counsel for Woody Allen in 1993-4 when the film director was prosecuted for reportedly abusing his stepchild. In 2001 Chatigny ruled against sex offender registries (a method of tracking repeat offenders).
I could go on and on, but seriously.... how much more is necessary? Why would Obama nominate this sort of person, no doubt knowing full well the man's record? And have the audacity to call him a person of integrity?
Anyway, you don't have to take my word for it. Read the links below and see for yourself. How is America supposed to function with these sort of twisted people in the judiciary? What does this say about Obama and others in power?
This video is a must see. The interview clips with Ross are unbelievable, truly sick and twisted.
That's all.
-freedomfightergirl
Sources:
http://www.afj.org/assets/resources/nominees/afj-chatigny-report.pdf
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37173
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/26/sexual-sadism-unleaded/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_N._Chatigny
GivesMeHope
Pretty much everyone's heard of FML, but you might not have seen its positive alternative, GMH (GivesMeHope.com). My inner cynic expected it to be cheesy and full of trivial events and "coincidences", but I was actually very moved by what I found. Here are some of my favourites:
My best friend died in a car accident on his way to deliver me soup for my cold.
Found in the car was also a bouquet of flowers and a card that read:
"We've been best friends for the last 5 years. Now, let's be lovers for the next 50."
Unforgettable LGMH
A little girl was dying of cancer and her younger brother had a match for the bone marrow she needed. The doctors told him it was a matter of life and death. After he had the surgery, he asked the doctors how long he had to live. He thought if he gave his bone marrow to let his sister live he would die but he did it anyway. GMH
22 years ago, a 16 year old girl was pregnant with a baby of rape.
Understanding the circumstances, her parents told her to abort or be disowned.
Her best friend - her 18 year old neighbor - although he was not the father, stepped into the father figures shoes. They got married 2 years later.
Mom and dad, your love for me and each other GMH.
My parents have been married for 35 years.
The other day my mom told me that when my dad calls her up at work to see if she wants to grab a cup of coffee, she still gets butterflies in her stomach.
Their everlasting love GMH.
To the girl at the gym who said she wouldn't get a prom date because she was too "fat":
My friends and I were lifting weights nearby to try to impress you. Don't ever think that all guys see is your weight. We thought you were gorgeous.
The fact that you will realize that one day GMH.
:-)
-freedomfightergirl
My best friend died in a car accident on his way to deliver me soup for my cold.
Found in the car was also a bouquet of flowers and a card that read:
"We've been best friends for the last 5 years. Now, let's be lovers for the next 50."
Unforgettable LGMH
A little girl was dying of cancer and her younger brother had a match for the bone marrow she needed. The doctors told him it was a matter of life and death. After he had the surgery, he asked the doctors how long he had to live. He thought if he gave his bone marrow to let his sister live he would die but he did it anyway. GMH
22 years ago, a 16 year old girl was pregnant with a baby of rape.
Understanding the circumstances, her parents told her to abort or be disowned.
Her best friend - her 18 year old neighbor - although he was not the father, stepped into the father figures shoes. They got married 2 years later.
Mom and dad, your love for me and each other GMH.
My parents have been married for 35 years.
The other day my mom told me that when my dad calls her up at work to see if she wants to grab a cup of coffee, she still gets butterflies in her stomach.
Their everlasting love GMH.
To the girl at the gym who said she wouldn't get a prom date because she was too "fat":
My friends and I were lifting weights nearby to try to impress you. Don't ever think that all guys see is your weight. We thought you were gorgeous.
The fact that you will realize that one day GMH.
:-)
-freedomfightergirl
Monday 21 June 2010
Broken Images
These lyrics were the first thing that sprang to mind when I thought of my blog name.
We saw beauty in the ashes
We saw treasure in the dust
We saw joy come out of mourning
We saw diamonds in the rough
And though the image may be broken
We saw Jesus shining through
And on each forgotten picture
He was writing "I love you"
Come and stand with the broken
Come and learn from the poor
Take the side of those forgotten
Let the image be restored
-Garth Hewitt
We saw beauty in the ashes
We saw treasure in the dust
We saw joy come out of mourning
We saw diamonds in the rough
And though the image may be broken
We saw Jesus shining through
And on each forgotten picture
He was writing "I love you"
Come and stand with the broken
Come and learn from the poor
Take the side of those forgotten
Let the image be restored
-Garth Hewitt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)