January 22, 2014 - Expecting parents can now get a life-size 3D model made of their unborn child. A new company, 3-D Babies, uses 3D/4D ultrasound images "to create a unique artistic representation of your baby using the latest computer graphics and 3D printing technology."
As "art" the fetus models are a bit tacky, in a big-eyed-children-on-black-velvet paintings way. That's just my opinion, though, and if parents want a model of their unborn child it's alright by me. There's no harm in it. Love it or hate it, you have to admit that it's an innovative way to make use of 3D printer technology.
British writer Mof Gimmers is very afraid, however. He confesses to being horrified by the 3D baby models and of the soon-to-be-born human beings that they represent. "Unborn babies and fish alike," he wrote, "are about as sentient as a Furby in a skip of emulsion." Nice, huh? No wonder Gimmers was named as one of the "100 worst people on Twitter."
"EVER looked at the world and become suddenly depressed?" wrote Gimmers in a January 21 post at Anorak with the melodramatic headline "Horrifying figurines of foetuses, now available to buy."
3D-Babies.com
Gimmers is revolted by unborn human beings, and that actually seems to be the root of his vile post: It's not the models that bothers him, really, its what they represent to him. He's one of those monstrous people who call the unborn "little parasites," and I'm sure he would agree that a fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells" less deserving of respect than a spoonful of chicken broth. Fetuses are like fish, he says. I'm not sure how he sees a fish when he looks at the 3D fetus models, but his hatred and disdain of unborn children are obvious.
When Gimmers sees a fetus model, he sees viciousness, cruelty and bloodiness. Perhaps that's a Freudian expression of his guilt feelings about abortion, which he obviously supports.
In Gimmers' twisted worldview, a mother's unborn child is just a parasite sitting in a sack of its own feces, not worthy of being born - especially if its parents had a 3D model made of it. (Note: Fetuses do not defecate in the womb; there's no need. The mother digests food, not the fetus; nutrients are passed to the fetus via blood through the umbilical chord.)
Gimmers is too cowardly to use his real name. He calls himself an "anti-snob"on his Tumblr blog (which takes forever to load). However, Gimmers is a snob. "Anyone buying these," he wrote, "should have spent that money on condoms or the taxi fare to a vasectomy." Agree with me, he seems to say, or submit to sterilization.
In other words, Gimmers is saying that the child should not have been conceived because Gimmers' artistic taste differs from that of the parents. Gimmers is unable to recognize that calling happy, expecting parents who are eager to "see" their unborn child "gruesome womb-botherers" is the height of snobbery. Indeed, his entire article is an elitist, snobbish demand that people who have different tastes in art be disallowed from reproducing. Pray that Gimmers never becomes Minister of Eugenics.
Gimmers and creeps like him must recoil in fear and disgust when they see a pregnant woman. A psychologically healthy person would see the beauty of a mother-to-be. Not Gimmers' crowd. They see a woman victimized by an ugly fish-like parasite lurking inside of her body. What must they think of a newborn child, freshly out of the womb, crapping all over itself and still dependent on its parents for food and safety?
Being a father is a sacred trust and a blessing from God. Being a father is not just a joyful responsibility. Actually having a father and knowing him, having him be a part of your life, is also a blessing. What a shameful thing it is for a man to ignore a child that is his. Dan Proft knows this first hand, so we wish him a special "happy Father's Day."
One of Dan Proft's favorite sayings is,"We need to invest in families." I'm sure he means time and love, in addition to other peoples' tax dollars. Proft frequently says that we should all "respect life." He means that he's anti-abortion, of course, but I'm so sure that he also means that children who are already born and leading their young lives should be respected, too, and that their fathers should be there at every step of the way. To merely allow someone to be born and then to abandon them, after all, is not very respectful.
Dan Proft is the guy who placed sixth in the Illinois Republican primary for governor back in February. He claims to a "conservative" and is even referred to (although often with snickering) as "the ultra-conservative Dan Proft." Proft calls himself an "unapologetic conservative." As such, I'm sure, he knows and cherishes the meaning of being a good father. He was an adopted child, after all, and therefore knows first hand just how horrible it is for a child to not have one's real father in his or her life.
"Our most important right is the right to life," Proft said on his campaign website."A respect for life means more than defending the unborn, it requires us to serve those born to disadvantageous circumstances and to find them loving homes for them. Thirty-seven years ago, I was adopted by parents who made the choice to welcome me into a loving, caring home. There are many children today who need stable homes, and those children, and the families that welcome them will have no stronger advocate in the governor’s office than me. According to the Dave Thomas Foundation, 60% of Americans have been personally touched by adoption. I am glad to say that I am a product of that happiness today."
As a student of social trends and current affairs, Dan Proft must be well aware of the fact that growing up without a father is one of the leading causes of juvenile deliquency and, later, a life of crime and/or academic failure. That's not to say, of course, that all fatherless children turn out bad, but the fact is that a disproportionately high number of them do.
Proft promised that - if elected governor - a Proft Administration would "Defend life from conception to natural death." I'm oh-so-sure that he must have also meant that a good father would do that for his own child, and not just leave that sacred duty to the government - or anybody else.
I'll bet that Dan Proft, as a Christian and a conservative, remains celibate and would never think of sleeping around. No sir, not Dan Proft. He's pure as the driven snow, you know, and that's why you should hang on his every word, whether he's speaking at a VFW hall or as a regular commentator and talk show host on WLS 890 AM.
Proft noted that it "is entirely natural for parents to want the best education possible for their children." Not just education, of course. I'm very certain that Dan Proft means that parents want the best of everything possible for their children. I'm sure that if he had a beautiful young daughter he'd want the best for her. Proft would want to see her grow up, to make sure she's studying, getting along well with other kids, dreaming the right kind of dreams, setting the right kind of goals. If Dan Proft had a daughter (hypothetically, of course) he'd be proud to publicly escort her to the opera and show her off. He'd want to be at her high school and college graduations, and eventually to walk her down the aisle at her wedding. If he had a son (again, hypothetically), Proft would want to play ball with him, do the graduation routines, and teach him to treat women with respect and dignity, and to always do the right thing. Right?
So, happy Father's Day to Dan Proft, a guy whose biological father was not in his life but was fortunate enough to be adopted into a loving household with both a mother figure and a father figure. See how well Dan Proft turned out? He's an inspiration to all of us, no? Remember: Any animal can sire a litter of offspring. It takes a real man to be a dad. I have no doubt that Dan Proft, and you and I, will remember our fathers - our dads - on Sunday, June 20.
"To a father growing old nothing is dearer than a daughter." ~Euripides
Barack Obama plans to deliver an Orwellian speech to school children across the nation on Tuesday, Sept. 8 at 12:00 Noon, Eastern time (see Obama's Speech to School Kidz). An important editorial from The Washington Times discusses widely held concerns about Barack Obama's plan to electronically invade schoolrooms next Tuesday, Sept. 8.
President Obama's planned address to America's schoolchildren on Sept. 8 is generating a firestorm of controversy from concerned parents who think he should mind his own business and stay away from their children. It's easy to see why.Oh? And why's that?
According to an Aug. 26 letter from Education Secretary Arne Duncan to school principals, the president wants to "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning." He also will call for "shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible.""Children must attend school, whether their parents like it or not; for they belong to the state more than to their parents." ~ Plato
"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.” ~ Francis Xavier (Jesuit)
An equally valuable column "Indoctrination: Get ‘Em While They’re Young," appears today at oregoncatalyst.com. It starts off with this:
Why should you care that the President will be addressing your children Monday? Simple: The content of the speech is being kept secret. When someone wants to talk to your children, but won’t tell you, the parents, what it’s about, sirens and alarm bells should be going off in your head. Whether you are for or against the President’s agenda, this should scare the hell out of you. After all, don’t we constantly warn our children that if any adult tells them not to tell their parents about something, they MUST tell their parents immediately?RELATED:Little Green Footballs - Islamic Indoctrination of ChildrenCool Hats & Shirts for Cool ConservativesLeave a Comment...Chicago News Bench RSS FeedWe're on Twitter...
Barack Obama plans to deliver an Orwellian speech to school children across the nation on Tuesday, Sept. 8 at 12:00 Noon (Eastern time), but has already backed down on parts of his presentation.
Obama's speech will not be televised. Instead, it will be streamed live on the Internet at the Whitehouse website. This means that you, homeschoolers, or anybody can watch it. (More about the home schooling aspect at Examiner.com.)
School districts across the country are discussing possible bans of the speech from classrooms, due in part to objections from parents who do not want their kids to be indoctrinated against their will. In fact, the wave of objection to the in-classrooms speech has been so strong that Obama's handlers rewrote part of it.
TheDallas Morning News reports today (Sept. 3):
The change comes as at least one more Dallas-Fort Worth school district decided Thursday morning not to show the speech. Meanwhile, two Congressmen have urged the Obama administration to release an early transcript of his Tuesday speech, which officials say is meant to underscore the importance of education. Many school districts around Texas and the country said today that they plan to decide soon if and how they will show the speech. ...AZ Family reports today that Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, Republican (photo), has reservations about allowing the speech to be shown in school rooms.
In a Sept. 3 news release from the Arizona Dept of Education, Horne is quoted as saying this:
“An important part of educating students is to teach them to read and listen critically. The White House materials call for a worshipful, rather than critical approach to this speech. For example, the White House communication calls for the students to have “notable quotes excerpted (and posted in large print on the board),” and for the students to discuss “How will he inspire us,” among other things. There is nothing in these White House materials about approaching the speech critically, or engaging in any critical thinking whatsoever, but only adopting a reverent approach to everything they are being told.” (You can read the entire news release (PDF) here.)
Michelle Malkins posts today about an alternative being offered to parents, courtesy of the National Tea Party Coalition. The NTPC's web site says it is asking that "schools who choose to participate in the president’s September 8th program offer an alternative to students and families who do not wish to view, or have their children view, a partisan address or participate in activities that did not follow proper educational protocol or obtain parental consent." (See the full alternative at HallPassOnThat.com.)
RELATED:
Video: Michelle Malkin on Obama's speech to public school students Politics Obama school-speech plan assailed - Seattle Times Newspaper
Conservatives wave red flags over Obama school speech - csmonitor.com
White House revises proposed lesson plan on Obama speech - Dallas Morning News
Kinder: Obama's address to students infringes on their rights - St. Louis Post-Dispatch
State: Ky. schools should provide alternative to Obama speech - Louisville Courier-Journal
Right blasts Obama speech to students - Politico
Conservatives Urge 'National Truancy Day' For Obama's Back-to-School Speech - Hispanic Business
Flashback: Bill Ayers declares education “the motor-force of revolution” - Michelle Malkin
Cool Hats & Shirts for Cool ConservativesLeave a Comment...Chicago News Bench RSS FeedWe're on Twitter...
During the long, long presidential election, Michelle Obama dissed Hillary Clinton by accusing her of not being able to run her "own house." But now, Michelle is taking advice from Hillary about ... running her own house."If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House," she told a gathering at a Women for Obama event in Chicago in August, 2007 (see video at bottom of this post).
Mrs. Obama also said that "one of the important aspects of this race is role modeling what good families should look like."Michelle accused the Clintons of not being able to run their "own house." By extension, she said that the Clintons were unfit to run the White House. Yet recently, Michelle Obama has been asking Hillary for advice on how to manage her own house. Soooo, Michelle is taking advice from a woman that she accused of not being able to run her own house about how to run her house.
Yet now Michelle Obama thinks that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were, after all, gosh, a model family. That makes no sense. By extension, then, Michelle is saying that she and Barack may not be qualified to run the White House. It's all a bit twisted.
Behind every great man, it is said, is a great woman. Oh-kay, maybe, not always. It's a stupid expression, true sometimes but not always. Let's see, Theodora stood behind Justinian and (temporarily) saved an empire. Jackie stood behind John, even as he chased Marilyn. Michelle stands behind Barack. Hillary stands, uhm, somewhere in the vicinity of Bill, or so we're told, even as he chases anything in a skirt. Laura stands behind George in the face of public ridicule. Eva stood behind Adolf. Evita stood behind nobody.
It's a stupid expression, really. There have been plenty of great, powerful, influential people who had lousy spouses, wicked significant others, or nobody at all. Let me repeat: It's a stupid expression. One wonders whether daddy Barack knows who it is that the mother of his children is taking child rearing advice from. (Will Hillary act as White House Babysitter to the Obamas?)
Michelle Obama, our soon-to-be-first-lady, has a love-hate relationship with former first lady and never-to-be-president Hillary Clinton. However, Michelle recently began asking Hillary for advice, according to Politico. Although Michelle was "privately critical of Clinton during the primaries," she asked Hillary about six weeks ago "for advice on how to provide some semblance of normality" for her li'l shorties Sasha and Malia. (More at Politico.com...)
Perhaps Michelle will learn about keeping her husband away from the interns. Perhaps Hillary can advise Michelle on keeping her man happy so that he has no desire to stain dresses in the Oval Office, or anywhere else, and thereby keep her baby daddy out of trouble. It would not be a good thing for the two Obama shorties to be embarrassed by a philandering father.
Will Hillary advise Michelle on the best way to steal the White House silverware four years from now, when the Obamas are voted out of the White House? In the final days of the Clinton Administration, Hillary and Bill treated the White House like a dollar store in Watts during a riot. Air Force One was looted, too. Gifts given to the Clintons, which under law become the property of the US Government, were taken home. In other words, the Clintons grabbed as much booty as they could and looted the place.
Maybe Hillary can explain the fine points of vandalizing the White House office equipment. After all, Obama can't legally be president forever, so when the final days of the Obama Administration are drawing near, it may be helpful to know the best way to wreck the computer keyboards and other items in the event that a Republican succeeds Barack. The Clintons and their gang of immature White House staffers did just that.
Deroy Murdock wrotethat they "severed some phone lines, misdirected others, glued file drawers shut, piled garbage in empty offices and rigged doors so that they locked Bush staffers inside their offices, according to NBC News. Clintonites planted pages of pornography among sheets of blank paper in computer printers. Obscene messages were left on phone machines. Someone actually graffitied the words "Bush Licker" on one hallway wall, an eyewitness told The Drudge Report." Nice, huh?
Oh, there's more, plenty more. More from Murdock: "Also, as part of this estimated $200,000 demolition derby, the letter "W" was removed from computer keyboards. Cute, but obnoxious. Thankfully, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not decide to hurl a warhead at the United States during the Inaugural parade. America's defensive capabilities might have suffered with White House communications links sabotaged. You can't type, much less fight, World War III without those Ws."This is just some of the vast left wing base of knowledge that Hillary pass on to Michelle, which Michelle can pass on to Barack, who can then share it with soon-to-be-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Rahm was there in the waning days of the Clintion Regime, but it wouldn't hurt for him to get a refresher course in the fine art of vandalism.
Perhaps Michelle can learn from Hillary how to run her house. We hope, for the sake of the Obama daughter, however, that Michelle finds a better mentor and role model.
Scamalot by Deroy Murdock on National Review OnlineDo We Really Want Another Clinton? Notes from a Democrat
I saw six nice young men walking down beautiful Morse Avenue in Rogers Park, 49th Ward of Chicago this afternoon. These young gentlemen, ages 15 to 17, were dressed so nicely in their ass-exposing baggy jeans, topped with nice white tee shirts, and they seemed to be very considerate of others.
They were so considerate, in fact, that one of them gently set his Bacardi rum bottle down - right in the middle of the driveway of the Fambly Dolla store. How nice of them to put their litter where it could be found easily! Another of the fine young honor students gently dropped his plastic juice bottle nearby.
I bowed my head and silently celebrated our "sustainable diversity."
Lots of less civilized honor students might have thrown the rum bottle at a passing car. Not these buckaroos, no sir. They were obviously raised right! It's young gentlemen such as those fine youngsters that make us all so proud of the 49th Ward!
"News" today about Obama, whohas cast himself as a "truth-talker" with the refrain that one of the biggest problems facing the country is "parents who don't parent." He has folded the line into his stump speech and a North Carolina TV ad. More at WSJ Online...
Well, sure, but Obama ain't the first one to say this. Bill Cosby, for example, caught heat and praise for saying this a few years ago.
If more people would take to heart the writings of W.E.B. DuBois we'd be better off. We don't need Barack Obama to tell us what is just plain common sense, and something that we've known for a long, long time.
Related Reading: