Ryder stops Stericyle from using trucks to service abortion insustry

MIAMI, Fla. -- The international truck leasing company Ryder System Inc. has informed the Campaign to Stop Stericycle (CSS) of its decision to stop Stericycle Inc. from using its trucks to service abortion facilities.

Stericycle, the nation's leading waste management company, depends entirely upon truck leasing companies like Ryder to provide vehicles for its waste collection routes, which include a reported 586 Planned Parenthood locations and hundreds of other abortion facilities nationwide.

Ryder's Chief Legal Officer and Executive Vice President Bob Fatovic told the campaign on Tuesday that Ryder is "changing [their] business and service relationship with Stericycle" after the company's investigation into Stericycle's collection, transportation and incineration of aborted children. Fatovic stated that in approximately 30 days Ryder's trucks will be fully removed from all of Stericycle's routes that service abortion facilities, and may not be used to service the abortion industry "in any way, shape or form."

Ryder's decision follows the similar course of action by Penske Truck Leasing, who stopped Stericycle last year from using its trucks nationwide to service the abortion industry after being informed by CSS that its vehicles were being used to pick up fetal remains from the "Richmond Medical Center for Women" in Virginia. Penske Truck Leasing President and CEO Brian Hard sent an email to the campaign soon afterward, which vowed, "We have been, and you have my word that we will continue to be, proactive in stopping Stericycle from using our trucks to service abortion clinics."

The week after Penske's trucks were removed from routes across America that included pickup at abortion facilities, a Ryder truck was seen servicing the Richmond facility. CSS immediately contacted Ryder's corporate office to express concern, and has remained in contact with Ryder's legal department for over a year. Now, as a result of the efforts of CSS, Ryder's subsequent investigation and the outcry of the public, Ryder trucks can no longer be used by Stericycle to service abortion facilities. In fact, Stericycle's leased Ryder trucks are already disappearing from their abortion collection routes, including one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

"We applaud Ryder System, Inc. for removing itself from the equation and understanding the serious concerns associated with Stericycle's use of its trucks to collect and transport the bodies of murdered children and the tools used to kill them," Michael Marcavage of CSS stated. "Ryder's decision to distance itself from Stericycle's involvement with the abortion industry is another significant step toward ending Stericycle's facilitation of the abortion holocaust. We hope that the remaining truck leasing companies will follow the lead of Penske and Ryder and stop providing resources to Stericycle to assist abortion facilities carry out their evil deeds," Marcavage added.

Marcavage also notes that there is much more work to be done as the number one supplier to Stericycle is Idealease, which has approximately 400 national affiliate locations and grosses over $150 million dollars a year.

CSS is now encouraging citizens to call Idealease President Dan J. Murphy at (847) 304-6000 and/or email danjmurphy@idealease.com and call upon him to instruct his company to stop supplying the means for Stericycle to service abortion facilities. Since Idealease is also a franchised company, citizens are exhorted to additionally contact their local Idealease office and request that they not lease their vehicles to Stericycle for the use of servicing the abortion industry.

"My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, for their feet run to evil and hasten to shed blood." - Proverbs 1:15-16

About Campaign to Stop Stericycle

Keep Jesus Out of Your Socialism (Part 3)

Michael Youseff

Previously, I talked about the Sojourners-sponsored ad headlined "What Would Jesus Cut?"The ad, signed by Jim Wallis and more than two dozen leaders of the Religious Left, urged our leaders to ask themselves what Jesus would cut from the federal budget.

Called "the leader of the Religious Left by The New York Times, Rev. Jim Wallis has a long history of denouncing his own country. In Agenda for Biblical People (1976), Jim Wallis refers to America as a "fallen nation." In an article inMission Trends, Wallis approvingly predicted that "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes" and that "so-called 'young evangelicals' . . . [will] see the impossibility of making capitalism work for justice and peace."

During the 1980s, Wallis defended the U.S.S.R. and blamed the U.S. for Cold War tensions, claiming, "At every turn, U.S. policy-makers have chosen to assume the very worst about their Soviet counterparts." He denounced the U.S. government which was trying to halt the spread of communism in Latin America in the 1980s, and supported Communist factions in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

In a 2006 radio broadcast, an interviewer asked, "Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?" Wallis replied, "Absolutely, without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is all about." Actually, no, that's what The Communist Manifesto is all about.

The organization Wallis heads, Sojourners, has received grants from the Open Society Institute totaling nearly a third of a million dollars. OSI is the foundation created by far-left atheist billionaire George Soros to fund his socialist, globalist agenda. Wallis first denied, then admitted, that Sojourners took the Soros money, claiming the amounts were "so small that I hadn’t remembered them."

Another signer of the "What Would Jesus Cut?" ad is sociologist Tony Campolo, quoted by John Oliver Mason in The Progressive (August 2005) as saying, "To be a Christian in today's world is to be opposed to America. Why? . . . America says, 'Blessed are the rich.' Jesus said, 'Woe unto you who are rich, blessed are the poor.'"

As an African-born American, I worked my way to this country. I paid for my education and was glad to do so. Unlike many people who were born in America and take its blessings for granted, I know how rare those blessings are in this world.

I don't see America as a "fallen nation." To me, America is a lighthouse of liberty, a shining city on a hill. May God bless my adopted homeland and may He open the eyes of those who deplore and oppose what God has blessed.

What's the best way to lift people out of poverty? America has spent trillions on anti-poverty programs—yet, as Jesus said, we still have the poor among us. These programs don't end poverty. They just incentivize it.

The best way—in fact, the only way—to lift people out of poverty is by creating jobs. How do you do that? With stimulus spending? When Congress passed the $787 billion Stimulus Bill in February 2009, unemployment stood at 8.2 percent. Before the end of the year, unemployment topped 10 percent; today it's at 9.1 percent. Clearly, "stimulus" spending doesn't work.

The only way to create jobs is to set the private sector free by cutting taxes and cutting government red tape. (I don't say that's what Jesus would cut; it's common sense.) The most effective anti-poverty program ever devised is a job, and most jobs in America are created by small businesses. When a businessman puts his capital at risk and hires employees, he's fighting poverty.

Writing in The Huffington Post, Wallis said, "I don't believe, as the Republicans keep saying, that the best way to help everybody is to keep helping the super-rich." Who are these so-called "super-rich"? Many are small business owners, the ones who create jobs, pay taxes, and support charities that fight poverty. Wallis's Marx-inspired policies would stifle opportunity, kill jobs, discourage donations, and increase poverty.

Shallow Marxist thinking supposes that the way to end poverty is through coercive income redistribution—confiscating wealth from the "haves" and handing it to the "have-nots." But true compassion seeks to expand liberty and opportunity—not government.

I don't claim that those on the Religious Left aren't true Christians. But we must be discerning about their message. The "social gospel" is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. The supporters of the "What would Jesus cut?" message are on the wrong side of the biblical mandate. Jesus did not say, "Go and tax your neighbor and transfer his wealth to the poor." He said, "Go and make disciples" (Matthew 28:19).

One reason Christians should not mix the gospel and the government is that true compassion for the poor should always be motivated by the love of Jesus Christ. When the poor receive help, Jesus should get the credit. How is the Great Commission fulfilled, and how is the Gospel proclaimed, by a government check from a Washington bureaucrat?

To use the name of Christ to advance a socialist ideology is to abuse His name. Jesus is Lord and Savior. His Kingdom is not of this world. He left the glories of heaven to be crucified, to rise again, to conquer hell and the grave—not to become a mascot for a worldly political movement.

Whatever Science Says?

By T. M. Moore

We are a society accustomed to nodding in agreement at whatever "science" tells us.

"Science" says the cosmos is "billions and billions" of years old and has evolved to its present state by sheer, random processes, with no meaning or purpose.

Yeah, well, guess it must be so.

"Science" tells us that we can know nothing for certain except by scientific means; everything that is not science is not knowledge, but only changeable opinion.

OK. Guess I'll just shut up.

"Science" insists that life may begin in the womb but that doesn't mean the "fetus" is a person. "Science" says there is no God or spiritual realm - at least, not that we have to take into account. "Science" - in one form or another - intends to have the last word on whatever it chooses to address.

Gotcha. Lemme just get out of the way.

The authority of the voice of "science" in our society has far exceeded what it should be. Given the limitations of science - it can only work with material objects and processes, after all - we might think that members of that community would be rather more circumspect about the implications and applications of their findings.

What we typically hear, however, are even more expansive claims affecting everything from the education of our children, the priorities of health care, and the role of religion in the public square, to what car to drive and which anti-depressant we should take.

A refreshing perspective 

So it's refreshing when a respected voice from the secular community speaks up to chasten the hubris of his colleagues in the sciences. Which is precisely what Henry C. Mansfield did upon accepting the Bradley Prize recently.

As reported in City Journal (17 May 2011), Dr. Mansfield, Harvard Professor of Government, took the occasion to bemoan the state of truth - or non-truth, as it happens to be - among America's colleges and universities, and to call the members of the scientific community to a bit more humility.

"To scientists," Dr. Mansfield explained, "the university is divided into science and non-science; the latter is not knowledge and is likely to be mush (in this last they are right)." Only science can tell us what is true; everything else is opinion. Dr. Mansfield continued, "Scientists easily forget that science cannot prove science is good, that their whole project is founded upon what is at best unscientific common sense.

They do not see that the unscientific foundation of science leaves science far short of wisdom, whether practical or theoretical. Science has no idea why human beings resist science at least as strongly as they embrace it. It cannot say why knowledge is better than prejudice."

To fill in those gaps, Dr. Mansfield explained, science needs the assistance of the humanities, including - wait for it - theology: "For some reason, the human is best respected in company with the sacred, humanity with divinity."

These are views we have frequently expressed in these pages, so we are greatly encouraged to learn that, even among the secular elite, awareness is growing that you cannot have a good or wise society where science rules and theology is excluded from the public square.

Are we ready?

But are those who read theology and practice the spiritual life prepared to step up and take a responsible role in pointing the rest of society in the direction of virtue and sound wisdom? Would you want your pastor sitting on a panel with Harvard professors arguing the case for goodness and wisdom? Or any Christian you know?

Dr. Mansfield's remarks represent an opening, if ever so slight, for informed Christians to begin engaging secular intellectuals and scientists on a great many subjects of importance to our society.

But if we aren't ready, or we don't consider such engagement an important part of our mission of reconciling all things to God through Christ, then that door will quickly shut, and the authoritative voice of "science" will only get louder.

How might you begin to prepare yourself today to challenge the present, albeit tenuous, hegemony of science over the realm of knowledge?

New Atheism

The current surge of secular books has re-ignited the age-old ideology that there is no God or Supreme Being. The popular thought that there is no God has gained momentum, giving rise to what is now branded “New Atheism”.

The question is; what is new about New Atheism?

The word Atheist originates from the word Theist. Theist refers to someone who believes in god or gods. As we’re all aware putting the letter a in front of theist is Latin for “no” (Latin: a- "no" + theist) or no belief in god or gods.

It seems that one thing that is “new” about New Atheism is in how they have redefined the term claiming that Atheism is not a belief. It is quite confusing to comprehend how an ideology of not believing, or to not believe in something, is not itself a belief .

I would like to get some thoughts on this topic from different perspectives in hopes that we can better understand the perspective of New Atheism. There are a number of questions that come to mind on this topic but I believe that beginning with some definitions will help keep the discussion focused and alleviate confusion as the discussion progresses.

Poll reflects will of the people in 31 state elections

ADF - FRC
Days prior to the New York Legislature vote to redefine marriage in their state to include same-sex couples, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) unveiled the results of a national survey that show traditional marriage isn't losing ground in the states, it's gaining it.

Public Opinion Strategies (POS), which routinely does polling for Fortune 100 companies, members of Congress, NBC News/Wall Street Journal, and National Public Radio, surveyed more than 1,500 adults in May. And it found that 62% of Americans agreed with the statement, "I believe marriage should be defined only as the union of one man and one woman."

What's more, 53% strongly agreed. Only 35% disagreed.[1] That's a far cry from what the media would have us believe. In recent surveys, the press seems intent on creating the illusion that there's momentum for same-sex "marriage." But unlike other polling, which has to twist questions to elicit a liberal response, ADF's survey was a straightforward, comprehensive look at the attitudes toward marriage today.

FRC's Peter Sprigg put the numbers in perspective. "Advocates of same-sex 'marriage' would have you believe that a majority of Americans are now ready to throw man-woman marriage and mother-father households on the ash heap of history. Don't believe it. Like the voters in 31 out of 31 states that have voted on the issue, this new poll makes clear that a solid majority of Americans still believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

POS's management said the numbers perfectly mirror what's going on at the ballot box. "More than 63 million Americans in 31 states have voted on constitutional marriage amendments. Forty million of them (63% of total voters) have voted to affirm marriage as a union between a man and woman." Marriage isn't a quaint idea that doesn't hold sway in America today. There's a vibrant movement to protect the family in our culture. And politicians who ignore it do so at their own peril.

Speaking of peril, the decision to redefine marriage is fraught with it. That's why FRC is releasing a brand new documentary, "The Problem with Same-sex Marriage: How It Will Affect You and Your Children." The film shows in heartbreaking details what happens to everyday Americans when marriage is redefined. You'll hear first-hand accounts of how same-sex "marriage" affects your kids, your rights as parents, and your religious liberties. You'll see for yourself the pattern of intolerance and intimidation that the Left uses on anyone who expresses disagreement. And you'll learn how to protect yourself so that you can take a stand for marriage in your community. Click here to see the trailer and order a copy. Homosexual activists are doing everything they can to convince Americans to give up on marriage. As ADF's poll shows, there's no reason to!

Endnote:
1. Marriage Survey Results Summary