Brave New World
“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned… to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers.”
–Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (New York: HarperCollins, 1932), xvii.
The Vatican on YouTube
Visit this site http://www.youtube.com/vatican
DESCRIPTION
This is the site of the official Vatican channel on the largest internet video community in the world. This channel offers news coverage of the main activities of the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI and of relevant Vatican events. It is updated daily. Video images are produced by Centro Televisio Vaticano (CTV), texts by Vatican Radio (RV) and CTV. Links give access to the full and official texts of cited documents.
Cautionary Note: Links to any other You Tube page may exhibit offensive videos.
Speaker Nancy Malthus
….Pelosi should abstain from social engineering . . . Ms. Pelosi’s remarks ignore the importance of human capital, which is the ultimate resource….
REVIEW & OUTLOOK, WALL STREET JOURNAL, JANUARY 27, 2009
One of the more curious items in the $825 billion House “stimulus” is $87 billion to help states with Medicaid, specifically including an expansion of family-planning services. The implication is that more people mean less economic growth.
Following a White House meeting with President Obama on Friday, Republican John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, asked how spending millions of dollars on birth control will help stimulate the economy. On Sunday, George Stephanopoulos of ABC’s “This Week” repeated the question to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who responded that “family planning services reduce costs.”
She added: “The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now, and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception — will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
The notion that a larger population will produce a lower standard of living can be traced to the 18th-century economist Thomas Malthus. But during Malthus’s own lifetime, his prediction was proved false, as he later acknowledged. Population and living standards rose simultaneously, and have continued to do so.
Ms. Pelosi’s remarks ignore the importance of human capital, which is the ultimate resource. Fewer babies would move the U.S. in the demographic direction of Europe and Asia. On the Continent, birth rates already are effectively zero, and economists are predicting labor shortages in the years ahead.
In Japan, where the population is aging very fast, workers are now encouraged to go home early to procreate. Japan is projected to lose 21% of its population by 2050.
The age and growth rate of a nation help determine its economic prosperity. A smaller workforce can result in less overall economic output. Without enough younger workers to replace retirees, health and pension costs can become debilitating. And when domestic markets shrink, so does capital investment.
Whatever one’s views on taxpayer subsidies for contraception, as economic stimulus the idea is loopy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123302034881718073.html
Pelosi Stammers Through Defense of $335 Million For STD Education In ‘Stimulus’ Bill
“There is a — I’m a big believer in prevention, and we have, uh, there’s a part of the bill on the health side of it that is about prevention. It’s about it being less expensive to the states to do these prevention measures.”
House Republicans United Against Massive Government Spending Program
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor, CNSNews.com, January 29, 2009
In a blow to President Barack Obama who went to Capitol Hill seeking Republican support, not a single House Republican voted for the Democrats’ economic stimulus plan on Wednesday.
The so-called American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 passed the House Wednesday by a vote of 244 to 188. Eleven Democrats also voted against it.
Republicans say tax relief would work faster in getting money to businesses and working families. But on Wednesday, an alternative Republican proposal, heavy on tax cuts, was defeated 266-170.
Republicans have been vocal in their opposition to the huge spending plan, saying it won’t stimulate anything except the Democrat Party and more debt. The plan’s price tag is estimated in the $819-billion to $1-trillion range.
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) listed four reasons why he voted against it:
– $80 billion for refundable tax-credits to individuals, even if they pay no taxes.
– $1 billion for the 2010 census
– $650 million for digital TV coupons.
– $600 million for new cars for the federal government.
Rep. Mike Pence called it a partisan bill - “a wish list of longstanding liberal Democrat priorities that have little do with putting our economy back on its feet.”
“What does $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts have to do with creating jobs?” Pence asked. “What is $400 million for climate change research going to do to put people back to work in Indiana? And what is $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education going to do to get this country working again?
“House Republicans will oppose this bill for one reason-it won’t work,” Pence said.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio) defended the “bipartisan rejection of a partisan bill.” Continue reading
‘Stimulus’ Gives Cash to Immigrants
The Associated Press, January 29, 2009
WASHINGTON: A top Republican congressional aide says the $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure could steer government checks to illegal immigrants.
Republican officials are concerned that the Democratic-written legislation makes people who came to the United States illegally eligible for tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple.
A House-passed version of the bill and one making its way through the Senate both disqualify nonresident aliens from receiving the credits. But neither requires a worker to have a Social Security number to get the credits.
An economic aid measure enacted in February 2008 that sent rebates to most wage earners required that people have valid Social Security numbers in order to get checks.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/29/america/Stimulus-Illegal-Immigrants.php
Obama’s Radical Agenda Looks to Advance “Localism” in New FCC Regulations; Among Others Will Threaten Catholic Radio
…….As reported recently in the National Catholic Register, a new version of the so-called Fairness Doctrine is threatening Catholic radio. Under the new Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will begin applying “localism” regulations to radio station licenses. Steve Gajdosik, president of the Catholic Radio Association, calls these regulations “the death knell for Catholic radio.”….. Deal Hudson, Inside Catholic, Jan. 28, 2009
The Fairness Doctrine regulates the range of opinions that should be heard on a radio station, while localism regulates the service provided to the station’s local community. But the impact of localism could be the same as the Fairness Doctrine, since the FCC can take away a station’s license if it’s found not to serve the “interests” of the local community.
President Obama, as a senator, advocated localism in a statement given to the FCC in Chicago. The head of Obama’s transition team, John Podesta, was president of the Center for American Progress, which issued a report on “The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio,” complaining of “the absence of localism in American radio markets” and urging the FCC to seek “greater local accountability over radio licensing.”
The head of the FCC transition team for Podesta and Obama is another supporter of localism standards: Henry Rivera, former chairman of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. The council spells out what is intended by localism:
“Broadcasters must . . . look for leaders in the civic, religious, and non-profit sectors that regularly serve the needs of the community, particularly the needs of minority groups that are typically poorly served by the broadcasting industry as a whole.”
In other words, the FCC can use the localism standard to determine whether Catholic radio stations, or any radio stations, are serving the “needs of minority groups” in their communities. (You can bet that Catholics are not one of those minority groups.)
In addition to ideological constraints, localism would affect small stations by requiring the main studios to be located within a broadcaster’s community, to fully staff those studios during hours of operation, to restore community advisory boards, and to establish minimum levels of locally originated programming that responds to community concerns.
The nearly 200 Catholic radio stations around the country neither have the resources to meet these standards nor can they subsume their religious mission to local advisory boards. As Gajdosik puts it, “This gives a local review board oversight to decide whether a station’s content serves the needs and interests of the local population.”
The leading lobbying group for religious broadcasters, the National Association of Religious Broadcasters, has gone on record against “localism mandates, adverse definitions of ‘public interest’ obligation, and media reform rules that could disfavor Christian broadcasters.”
The NRB believes that the Broadcaster Freedom Act, introduced on January 7, will prevent the FCC from determining the content of Christian radio stations. Reps. Mike Pence (R-ID) and Greg Walden (R-OR) are sponsors of the House bill, and Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Thune (R-SD) are the Senate sponsors.
Pence told the National Catholic Register that he and his colleagues will continue to push the Broadcaster Freedom Act: “There’s no doubt that if it gets to the floor of the House, it will pass by a wide margin.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has taken an in-between position on localism. Jessica Gonzales, an attorney for the Catholic bishops, explained that localism could be used as an incentive for “fast-track renewals” of station licenses. Gonzales said the USCCB is not concerned about the impact of localism “guidelines” on radio content, since “many broadcasters suggest they are already comporting with the guidelines.”
On the other hand, the Catholic Radio Association, which exists independently of the USCCB, is deeply concerned about the impact of localism standards. Last April, CRA filed a 19-page brief with the FCC opposing localism and the problems it creates for smaller stations (and for Catholic radio in particular).
The FCC currently renews radio station licenses every eight years. If, as suggested by Human Events, the FCC decides on an accelerated license review every two years, then during Obama’s first term, every radio license in America can be reviewed twice. Any station that fails to meet localism standards would then be subject to having its license revoked. We’ll keep you updated as events develop.
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5318&Itemid=48
Senator Criticizes Obama Nominee’s Claim That Mexico City Policy is ‘Unconstitutional’
- An Obama nominee for Deputy Secretary of State who argued the Mexico City Policy would be a free speech violation if applied domestically is being charged by a U.S. senator with contradicting U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
The Mexico City Policy forbids funding for groups which perform or promote abortions. It was originally enacted under the Reagan administration, reversed under the Clinton administration, reintroduced under the George W. Bush presidency, and again reversed on Jan. 23 by President Barack Obama.
The Deputy Secretary of State nominee, James B. Steinberg, made his comments in written testimony to the Foreign Relations Committee.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) asked whether Steinberg supported President Obama’s efforts to lift the Mexico City Policy’s restrictions “and use the federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortion services overseas.”
“Do you support President Obama’s efforts to lift the Mexico City restrictions? Do you believe our foreign policy should contradict long held domestic policies?” Sen. DeMint asked.
Steinberg replied:
“President Obama has supported repeal of the Mexico City policy, as has Secretary Clinton. Longstanding law, authored by Senator Jesse Helms, expressly prohibits the use of U.S. funds of abortion. The Mexico City policy is an unnecessary restriction that, if applied to organizations based in this country, would be an unconstitutional limitation on free speech.”
“Steinberg’s opinion is in direct contradiction to the U.S. Supreme Court,” a Monday posting on the blog of Sen. DeMint argued, saying that the high court “definitively decided” the matter in a 1991 case Rust v. Sullivan.
“The Government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected, and may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion,” the court’s majority decision read.
CNA spoke about Steinberg’s testimony in a Wednesday phone interview with Sen. DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton.
“It’s pretty clear that the Supreme Court has emphatically ruled on this issue and that there is no constitutional protection of taxpayer funding for abortion. To restrict those funds is perfectly legitimate under the constitution,” Denton said.
“There’s a concern that without the Mexico City Policy countries that receive foreign aid that have strong pro-life laws may feel forced to remove those laws and restrictions against abortion to receive U.S. foreign aid,” he explained.
He referenced a 2006 list titled “44 Nations Arbitrarily Pressured by UN Treaty Committees To Legalize or Increase Access to Abortion,” produced by Focus on the Family U.N. Representative Thomas W. Jacobson.
Denton called Steinberg’s attempt to distinguish between funding of abortion services and funding of organizations which perform or promote abortion “a distinction without a difference.”
“They just move the money around within the organization,” he claimed in his conversation with CNA.
Sen. DeMint co-sponsored an amendment to the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 seeking to restore the Mexico City Policy. The amendment was defeated by 60-37 in a Wednesday vote.
Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), reputed to be a pro-life Democrat, voted against the amendment. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) was the only Democrat who favored the measure.
Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) broke with fellow Republicans and opposed the amendment.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14923
Exclusive Interview: Leading Vatican Prelate Says Document of U.S. Bishops Partly to Blame for Election of “Most Pro-Abortion President”
ROME – A document of the US Catholic Bishops is partly to blame for the abandonment of pro-life teachings by voting Catholics and the election of the “most pro-abortion president” in U.S. history, one of the Vatican’s highest officials said in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com.
Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, named a document on the election produced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that he said “led to confusion” among the faithful and led ultimately to massive support among Catholics for Barack Obama.
The U.S. bishops’ document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” stated that, under certain circumstances, a Catholic could in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports abortion because of “other grave reasons,” as long as they do not intend to support that pro-abortion position.
Archbishop Burke, the former Archbishop of St. Louis Mo. and recently appointed head of the highest ecclesiastical court in the Catholic Church, told LifeSiteNews.com that although “there were a greater number of bishops who spoke up very clearly and firmly … there was also a number who did not.”
But most damaging, he said, was the document “Faithful Citizenship” that “led to confusion” among the voting Catholic population.
“While it stated that the issue of life was the first and most important issue, it went on in some specific areas to say ‘but there are other issues’ that are of comparable importance without making necessary distinctions.”
Archbishop Burke, citing an article by a priest and ethics expert of St. Louis archdiocese, Msgr. Kevin McMahon, who analysed how the bishops’ document actually contributed to the election of Obama, called its proposal “a kind of false thinking, that says, ‘there’s the evil of taking an innocent and defenceless human life but there are other evils and they’re worthy of equal consideration.’
“But they’re not. The economic situation, or opposition to the war in Iraq, or whatever it may be, those things don’t rise to the same level as something that is always and everywhere evil, namely the killing of innocent and defenceless human life.”
Archbishop Burke also cited the work of the official news service of the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference, that many pro-life observers complained soft-pedalled the newly elected president’s opposition to traditional morality.
“The bishops need to look also at our Catholic News Service, CNS, they need to review their coverage of the whole thing and give some new direction, in my judgement,” he said.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012805.html
A CONSERVATIVE’S PROPOSAL: My Bipartisan Stimulus
….Let’s cut taxes, as I want, and spend more,
as Obama would like.
By RUSH LIMBAUGH. WALL STREET JOURNAL, January 29, 2009
There’s a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they’re left alone.
What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.
I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don’t believe his is a “stimulus plan” at all — I don’t think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party.
This “porkulus” bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party’s power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party’s majority power for decades.
Keynesian economists believe government spending on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects — schools, roads, bridges — is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.
Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.
Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there’s an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.
Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It’s important to remember that it’s the people’s money, not Washington’s.)
In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, “I won. I’m going to trump you on that.”
Yes, elections have consequences. But where’s the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.
Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%.
As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009:
- 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats;
- 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.
Then we compare. We see which stimulus actually works. This is bipartisanship! It would satisfy the American people’s wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a measurable test as to which approach best stimulates job growth.
I say, cut the U.S. corporate tax rate — at 35%, among the highest of all industrialized nations — in half.
Suspend the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%. Then get out of the way!
Once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, the rest of the private sector will follow. There’s no reason to tell the American people their future is bleak. There’s no reason, as the administration is doing, to depress their hopes. There’s no reason to insist that recovery can’t happen quickly, because it can.
In this new era of responsibility, let’s use both Keynesians and supply-siders to responsibly determine which theory best stimulates our economy – and if elements of both work, so much the better.
The American people are made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and moderates, but our economy doesn’t know the difference. This is about jobs now.
The economic crisis is an opportunity to unify people, if we set aside the politics. The leader of the Democrats and the leader of the Republicans (me, according to Mr. Obama) can get it done. This will have the overwhelming support of the American people. Let’s stop the acrimony. Let’s start solving our problems, together. Why wait one more day?
Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html
GOP Loses Standoff, Wins Respect
Tony Perkins, Pres. Family Research Council, January 28, 2009
President Obama came to the Republican mountain, but he didn’t manage to move it. In his much-anticipated meeting with the House minority, the new leader tried to soften opposition to the $1.1. trillion stimulus package.
Obama did concede on one of the Republicans’ largest complaints–the hundreds of millions of dollars in contraception. He stripped that provision, along with a beautification project for the National Mall, but neither compromise did much to ease Republicans’ minds. Like us, they see the “recovery package” not as stimulus but as a major pork-and-payoff bill that quietly authorizes the most controversial pieces of Obama’s social agenda.
Although the legislation passed this evening 244-188, the GOP did set in motion a new era of opposition, voting unanimously against a bill that would take government into the final frontiers of universal health care and federalized education.
In the face of the most popular incoming President since JFK, Republicans stood together in statement of solidarity. We applaud them for showing real backbone against unprecedented government expansion.
As the veil begins to drop from the shady elements of the stimulus, more people are beginning to understand what’s at stake. Today’s New York Times“Stimulus Offers Road to Retooling Social Policy” with “little notice and no public hearings.” reads, We thumbed through the 1,588 page H.R. 1 and found plenty of waste.
Obama offers: $600 million to buy “green” cars for government workers; $400 million to help NASA conduct climate change research (which ranks dead last on Americans’ priorities, according to a new Pew poll); $4.1 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities,” for which ACORN (the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote machinery) would be eligible; and even $227 million to oversee the pork spending in the stimulus (Page 11). Medicaid would expand for the poor, the uninsured, and the unemployed, opening the doors to universal health care. And the bill would more than double the Department of Education’s current budget.
Swimming against the liberal tide isn’t easy, and House Republicans need your encouragement to stay motivated for the work ahead. Please call the leader in your district today and thank them for refusing to back down on H.R. 1.
FRC Blog: Not Quite a Stimulus: Speaker Pelosi’s Payoffs and Pork Bill
TODAY’S MEDITATION: Work for the Harvest
Saint Thomas Aquinas, priest and doctor
Father Ernest Daly, LC
Mark 4:1-20
On another occasion Jesus began to teach by the sea. A very large crowd gathered around him so that he got into a boat on the sea and sat down. And the whole crowd was beside the sea on land. And he taught them at length in parables, and in the course of his instruction he said to them, “Hear this! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Other seed fell on rocky ground where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep. And when the sun rose, it was scorched and it withered for lack of roots. Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it and it produced no grain. And some seed fell on rich soil and produced fruit. It came up and grew and yielded thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.” He added, “Whoever has ears to hear ought to hear.” And when he was alone, those present along with the Twelve questioned him about the parables. He answered them, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables, so that ´they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.´” Jesus said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand any of the parables? The sower sows the word. These are the ones on the path where the word is sown. As soon as they hear, Satan comes at once and takes away the word sown in them. And these are the ones sown on rocky ground who, when they hear the word, receive it at once with joy. But they have no root; they last only for a time. Then when tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. Those sown among thorns are another sort. They are the people who hear the word, but worldly anxiety, the lure of riches, and the craving for other things intrude and choke the word, and it bears no fruit. But those sown on rich soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.”
Introductory Prayer:Lord, I want to spend these moments close to you. I believe that you are here with me. Take over my life more and more and make it what it was meant to be. Lord, I put my trust in you.
Petition:Jesus, make the soil of my heart open to your word so that it will bear fruit for eternal life.
1. Beware of the Thieves What the Father has planted in our lives is good. Goodness can bear fruit. But Christ has shown us that there is someone who does not want us to bear fruit. The devil tries to take goodness from our lives through enticing us with evil, filling our hearts with selfishness, and making us insensitive to the movements of grace in our soul. We need to renounce Satan every day by fixing our will on the goodness of Christ. This is done through sincere prayer and generosity of spirit.
2. Dig Deep The strength of our resolve is tested by the difficulties we face. If we go deeper in our prayer each day and build up the habit of letting go of our own ego, we can face the bad times with peace and trust. When our spiritual roots are not deep, we find ourselves disoriented—even defeated—by the tribulations that are part of an authentic Christian life. Christ teaches us to dig deep. With him as our friend, difficulties become a way to show our love and to do something that has eternal value. If I don’t fight, how can I merit a crown of victory?
3. Fruit in Docility In order to bear fruit, we must be docile to God’s word. But being docile does not mean being passive. For a Christian, docility to Christ and the Holy Spirit means willingness to work and serve. We are followers of the One who came to serve. The Spirit that is self-surrender moves us. To hear the Word of God and accept it means to make our lives an imitation of Christ’s total self-giving—day in and day out. God will grant fruit to our lives if we are willing to be other Christs in the here and now.
Conversation with Christ: Lord, thank you for showing me how to bear fruit in my life. I want to imitate your self-surrender to the Father and to souls. I know that this requires a constant effort to go deep in my life and be docile to the Holy Spirit. Help me to live as a giver, not a taker. Your love will always be there to accompany me.
Resolution: Today I will offer up a small sacrifice to ask God for the grace of acquiring the virtue that I need the most.
http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=363&ca=975&te=735&id=20302
TODAY’S SAINT: ST. GILDAS THE WISE
He was probably born about 517, provably in the North of England or Wales. His father’s name was Cau (or Nau) and that he came from noble lineage. He probably had several brothers. It is likely that one of these, Cuil (or Hueil), was killed by King Arthur (who died in 537 AD). It also appears that he may have forgiven Arthur for this.
He lived in a time when the glory of Rome was faded from Britain. The permanent legions had been withdrawn by Maximus, who used them to sack Rome itself and make himself Emperor.
He was noted for his piety and well educated, and was not afraid of publicly rebuking contemporary monarchs, at a time when libel was answered by a sword, rather than a Court order. Continue reading
Bioethics Defense Fund Writes a Pro-Life Letter From the Heart to Pres. Obama; Invites Others to Participate
GO TO: http://www.bdfund.org/obamaletter.asp
Dear President Obama:
Congratulations on your historic inauguration.
We’d like to introduce ourselves. We are pro-life Americans.
You will be hearing from us so we’d like to share our motivations.
Like you, we are motivated by faith; we have faith in God in whose image we are created.
Like you, we are motivated by hope; we encourage the kind of hope that is personified by one person reaching out to another in difficult situations like crisis pregnancies, and the experience of suffering from disease.
Like you, we are motivated most of all by love.
We have a deep love for the unique and unrepeatable beauty of every unborn child targeted for abortion, and for that child’s mother and father who will be deprived of their child’s transforming love.
We have a deep love for the young women of our nation who live in a culture that exploits them as sex objects due to the easy availability of abortion.
We have a deep love for our friends and family who suffer from disease and who deserve medical research and treatment that does not burden their conscience with knowing that human lives were destroyed in the name of science.
We have a deep love for those at the end of life who deserve true care and concern, not the false compassion of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.
On this historic occasion that vindicates the rights of human beings who were once considered to be property in American law, we invite you, Mr. President, to lead our nation with policies that respect the dignity and human rights of every human life, from beginning to end.
Sincerely,
GO TO: http://www.bdfund.org/obamaletter.asp
One More Thing in That “Stimulus” Package….Feds Want Your Medical Records
WorldNetDaily, By Bob Unruh, January 27, 2009
 |
A little-discussed provision in President Obama’s economic stimulus plan would demand that every American submit to a government program for electronic medical records without a choice to opt out, and it has privacy advocates more than a little alarmed.
Patients might be alarmed, too, privacy advocates said, if they realized information such as documentation on abortions, mental health problems, impotence, being labeled as a non-compliant patient, lawsuits against doctors and sexual problems could be shared electronically with, perhaps, millions of people.
Sue A. Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom, said unless people have the right to decide “if and when” their health information is shared, there is no real privacy.
“President Obama has pledged to advance freedom,” she said. “Therefore the freedom to choose not to participate in a national electronic health-records system must be upheld.”..…CONTINUED…. http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87322
UPRIGHT
The Patriot Post, Wednesday Chronicle, Vol. 09 No. 04, 28 January 2009
“The stimulus package being discussed is politically smart but economically stupid. It’s that bedeviling, omnipresent Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy problem again. …
Demo Economic Plan
A far more important measure that Congress can take toward a healthy economy is to ensure that the 2003 tax cuts don’t expire in 2010 as scheduled. If not, there are 15 separate taxes scheduled to rise in 2010, costing Americans $200 billion a year in increased taxes. In the face of a recession, we don’t need that.”
–economist Walter E. Williams
THE FOUNDATION
Wednesday Chronicle, Vol. 09 No. 04, 28 January 2009
“Beware the greedy hand of government, thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry.”
–Thomas Paine
MUST READ: Bishop Hermann of St. Louis – Strongest Ever Pro-Life Column (short version)
….Until we are willing to be politically incorrect in order to be biblically correct, we will never convince anyone that our religion is worth living…..
By Bishop Robert J. Hermann, Archdiocesan Administrator, 
January 27, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com
Editor’s note: The following are excerpts from the column of Bishop Hermann published in the St. Louis Review and republished by LifeSiteNews.com with permission.
To read the whole column, see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012707.html
In our Supreme Court and in our Congress, we have a plethora of so-called Catholics who are failing to live their Catholic identity. Over 50 percent of our electorate voted for a president who is one of the most pro-culture-of-death candidates from a major party to run for the highest office of the land.
Yes, we can thank one-half of our Catholics for bailing out on their faith!
After almost 50 years of having 50 percent of Catholics abandoning their Catholic identity, we cannot expect to turn this culture around by short-term political efforts.
In order to bring about a transformation from a culture of death to a culture of life, we have to restore our Catholic identity.
This means that all of us, as Catholics, have to undergo a profound transformation. It means that we have to take a good look at every facet of our Catholic life, including the serious study of life issues, the regular and devout use of our Sacramental system, especially the devout and weekly attendance at Mass, the regular reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the devout praying of the daily Rosary, and then the faithful, loving and firm witness to lax Catholics about our Catholic beliefs and practices.
We have to live our lives in such a way that we will be unafraid to witness to what we believe and live.
I may courageously say that I am willing to die to end abortion, but am I equally willing to say that I am ready to let my ego get ruffled daily for the same cause? Yet … that is where I need to arrive if I am to be a credible witness.
What a glorious opportunity we all have to make a difference in the pro-life cause.
Until we are willing to be politically incorrect in order to be biblically correct, we will never convince anyone that our religion is worth living.
It does not take 100 percent of our Catholics to transform this country. If 75 percent of our Catholics were steeped in Catholic identity, the abortion issue would be over for our entire country.
For the whole column by Bishop Hermann see:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012707.html
The House Democrats’ “Stimulus” Bill Overreaches!
$335,000,000 FOR SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED
DISEASE (STD) PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC
STIMULUS BILL
Rep, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), speaker of the U.S. House (AP photo)
DRUDGE REPORTS, January 28, 2009
Democrats may have eliminated provisions in the “job stimulus” on birth control and sod for the National Mall — but buried on page 147 of the bill is economic stimulation for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!
The House Democrats’ bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease (STD) education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
In the past, the CDC has used this STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called “Booty Call” and “Great Sex” put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.]
“Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation,” says a stimulated Hill source.
Developing… http://www.drudgereport.com/flashsb.htm
Is Al Gore Really Serious? Unfortunately, He Is!
Gore to Crank Up Heat On Senate
as Snow, Ice Hit Washington
Former Vice President Al Gore is urging Congress not to be sidetracked by the current financial crisis and to take “decisive action” this year to reduce the heat-trapping gases responsible for global warming.
Gore, scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, planned to tell lawmakers that a bill capping greenhouse gas emissions is needed if the U.S. is to play a leading role in negotiations for a new international climate treaty.
He also was pressing Congress to pass President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan, saying investments in clean energy and green jobs will help dig the country out of its economic rut, according to his prepared testimony.
Former Vice President is urging Congress not to be sidetracked by the current financial crisis and to take ‘decisive action’ this year to reduce greenhouse gases.
http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2009/01/28/gore_economy_should_spur_action_on_global_warming
SCHIP Expansion Amounts to ‘Socialized Medicine’ Senate Republicans Say
…. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was puzzled why Democrats stripped language that would have capped entry into the program at 300 percent of poverty — approximately $63,000 per year for a family of four . . . Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), meanwhile, said congressional Democrats want to “increase Medicare, increase the number of people who are covered under SCHIP and just work toward the middle and pretty much have nationalized healthcare.” …..
By Matt Cover, CNSNews.com, January 28, 2009
“One could certainly conclude that,” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), said in response to questions from CNSNews.com. “This is yet one more way to get people off of private coverage and onto government coverage so that little by little you eventually end up with a majority of people on government coverage.”
SCHIP, or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, is a joint federal-state program designed to provide healthcare coverage to children whose parents cannot afford private coverage.
The latest expansion of SCHIP, spearheaded by congressional Democrats, will put between 25 and 50 percent of new enrollees, mostly middle-income children, onto the federal dole – children who currently are covered under private insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) said the version of the bill currently under consideration in the Senate does not contain income caps that would have kept moderate- and middle-income Americans from taking advantage of a program that Republicans say was originally designed to help the poor.
“I voted for the original SCHIP bill,” Bunning told CNSNews.com. “But I haven’t voted for the expansions because they have always taken away from the original intent of the bill, to cover people with (income) less than 200 percent of poverty.”
“I can’t support anything that will do that,” Sen. Bunning declared.
Republicans in the Senate say they were supportive of the original SCHIP bill, as drafted by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), because its goal has been to provide basic health coverage to poor children, but opposed the expansion to those who don’t need it.
“The Republican goal is that every low-income child should have health insurance, we want that to happen,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) explained.
Alexander said that Republicans were prepared to fight over the future of SCHIP, offering amendments to return the program to its original purpose.
“I expect there to be Republican amendments to try to restore the bill,” he said. “A large number of Republicans voted for it, (and) we’d like to vote for it again. We’ll offer amendments to see if we can fashion a health insurance bill that meets the objectives that we voted for last time.”
Kyle, the Senate Republican Whip and a member of the Senate Finance Committee, also promised action to contain Democratic expansions of SCHIP
“We’re going to try to do something about (it),” Kyl told CNSNews.com before heading into the Senate chamber.
Kyl was puzzled why Democrats stripped language that would have capped entry into the program at 300 percent of poverty — approximately $63,000 per year for a family of four.
Continue reading
BIRTH CONTROL…THE NEW ECONOMIC STIMULUS!
…The Left will use absolutely any opportunity to push its radical social platform–even if it means cloaking their agenda as “stimulus.”…
“Cut Taxes, Not Children”, Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, January 27, 2009
When President Obama said the stimulus bill would improve “infrastructure,” he neglected to mention that all roads lead to Planned Parenthood.
In what is proving to be a wildly unpopular move, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) injected their radical ideas about population control into the ballooning economic recovery plan.
Their plan called for the bulk of an $87 billion state Medicaid expansion to be used help people, especially young teens, get their hands on more birth control. According to CNS News, the White House is denying that the “family planning” push was Obama’s idea. In fact, there was such outcry by groups like FRC that the President backed away from his personal support for these programs and called on his party to drop the provision. Late news reports have indicated that Congressional Democrats will bow to his request. If true, it’s a resounding victory for our movement.
However, the debate does underscore just how much influence Rep. Obey holds over the appropriations process. In today’s New York Times, the twenty-term congressman is featured as the architect of this stimulus plan. As a gatekeeper of our tax dollars, he must hear from you that funding “family planning” programs that promote abortion is not an acceptable use of your money. It’s not too late to sign onto our petition at www.frc.org. Join the 45,000 who have told Obey to keep Americans out of the abortion business.
In the meantime, the battle over birth control doesn’t end with the stimulus bill. If Pelosi doesn’t get her way with the recovery package, her Senate colleagues have a backup plan called the Prevention First Act (H.R. 819), which would infuse millions of dollars into the same contraception campaign.
Unlike the stimulus bill, this legislation would go further in using taxpayer funds to push Plan B and also mandate abortion referrals. Make no mistake.
The Left will use absolutely any opportunity to push its radical social platform–even if it means cloaking their agenda as “stimulus.”
CNS News: Backing Away from Pelosi, White House Says Birth Control
Funding in Stimulus Bill Was Not Obama’s Idea
Honesty, Integrity…Lost Virtues?
Too Lax on Timothy’s Tax
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU09A15&f=PG07J01
“These are not normal times,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). After a man who failed to pay thousands of dollars in taxes was confirmed as Secretary of Treasury yesterday, few would disagree.
Most of the 60 senators who voted for Timothy Geithner yesterday said they did so because of the tough economic times.
In my opinion, that’s the best argument for voting against him.
In tough times, America needs a man they can trust to live by the rules he’ll enforce. What they got, thanks to nine Republicans and 51 Democrats, was what many are calling “serial tax liar.” Democrats Robert Byrd (W.V.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), and Tom Harkin (Iowa) all defected from the party line and voted against Geithner’s confirmation.
The good news for conservatives is that the GOP finally showed some political backbone and united against Obama’s pick. Led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), 30 Republicans opposed the confirmation of Geithner. We commend McConnell for upholding an appropriate standard for appointees – prove you can live by the rules you’ll enforce on others.
As the hearing for James Steinberg, candidate for Deputy Secretary of State, approaches, we hope for more of the same from Senate Republicans. Steinberg, an outspoken proponent of taxpayer-funded abortion, is the subject of our latest Change Watch at www.frcblog.com. If you’re interested in a printer-friendly version, look for a link to FRC Action’s .pdfs on the blog.
Associated Press: Analysis: Hard times help Geithner’s Treasury bid
FRC Blog: Change Watch Backgrounder: James Steinberg
DeMint’s Sweet Revenge
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, 1-27-09
President Obama may have abolished the Mexico City policy, but one Republican refuses to say die. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-Ga.), a staunch pro-life ally, drafted an amendment this week to override Obama’s order and reinstate the ban.
FRC was informed that Sen. DeMint plans to offer his counter-amendment in the upcoming SCHIP bill, but he needs your help. Contact your senators today and ask them to protect taxpayers’ rights by supporting the amendment. Americans should never be forced to pay for abortions–at home or abroad. For the answer to the question “What Exactly Is the Mexico City Policy?”
visit: www.frcblog.com/2009/01/what_exactly_is_the_mexico_cit.html to read Tom McClusky’s take.
FRC Blog: What Exactly Is the Mexico City Policy?
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU09A15&f=PG07J01
Let’s Be Honest Now, Shall We? Obama’s Million Ghost March
I doubt it would surprise anyone here that the media would go to their best lengths to over-estimate the number of people at Obama’s inauguration. But just how far? Try a million people.
ASU journalism professor Stephen Doig took it to the satellite image to get an accurate count of the crowd. His tally, after even accounting for those still in route to the event: 800,000. Now let’s look at how the working Obamalists portrayed that to the public.
Baltimore Sun: “Inaugural crowd is estimated at close to 2 million”
Boston Globe: ” The National Park Service says it will rely on a media report that says 1.8 million people attended President Obama’s inauguration.”
MSNBC: “Oh, and some guy named Barack Obama. Along with millions of regular folk, celebrities swarmed to DC to celebrate the Inauguration.” (from the same page: “Could Inauguration Crowd Reach 4 Million?”)
LA Times: “Crowds surged in previously unseen numbers today for the presidential inauguration of Barack Obama, making it seem increasingly likely that the gathering would reach the record-setting mark of 2 million.”
Here’s where it gets good.
Washington Post: “the official estimate released by the District yesterday is 1.8 million, a figure that would make the gathering the largest ever on the Mall.”
Backstory on that “official estimate released by the District” that the Washington Post is writing about.
AP: “Park service spokesman David Barna said the agency did not conduct its own count. Instead, it will use a Washington Post account that said 1.8 million people gathered on the U.S. Capitol grounds, National Mall and parade route, he said.”
And that is especially interesting because if you follow the jump on the Washington Post story you’ll find this nugget of info: “The Washington Post’s analysis of the image concluded that about 1 million people were on the Mall.” And the first page of the article mentions the parade route “was supposed to accommodate 300,000 people at its height”. Fuzzy math, a journalist staple.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2009/01/22/obamas-million-ghost-march
Think Obama’s Plans Will Reduce Abortion? “This is Delusional” Says Princeton Professor Robert George
By Kathleen Gilbert, January 27, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Those who think that Obama’s economic policies will ultimately reduce abortions are “delusional.” says Professor Robert George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.
In remarks delivered at the Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life last week and published in the Witherspoon Institute’s online journal Public Discourse, George, a McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, explored the polarization of America’s political parties over abortion. The rise of this issue to the forefront of party politics was sparked, he said, by the unified Christian effort to end injustice to the unborn – an effort that must not be derailed.
“Barack Obama is trying to win over religiously serious Catholics and Evangelicals, without altering in the slightest his support for abortion, including late-term and partial-birth abortions, the funding of abortion and embryo-destructive research with taxpayer dollars, the elimination of informed consent and parental notification laws, and the revocation of conscience and religious liberty protections for pro-life doctors and other healthcare workers and pharmacists.” George wrote. “He will ultimately fail. We must see to it that he fails.”
Nonetheless, George warned, Obama “is being served and abetted” by some high-profile Christians “who have been peddling the claim that Obama, despite his pro-abortion extremism, is effectively pro-life because of his allegedly enlightened economic and social policies will reduce the number of abortions.”
“This is delusional,” said George. “The truth is that Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to serve in the United States Senate or seek the Office of President of the United States.” As such, said George, Obama is sure to dramatically increase abortions, in accord with the demands of the abortion lobby.
“It is the pro-abortion side that tells us that the Hyde Amendment alone has resulted in 300,000 fewer abortions each year than would otherwise be performed – and that is why they so desperately want it to be repealed,” he continued. “Yet the putatively pro-life Obama apologists claim that the man who pledges to repeal it is going to reduce the number of abortions.
“Let me say it again: this is delusional.”
To read Prof. George’s full remarks, go to:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.01.22.001.pdart
U.S. to Fund Chinese Coercion?
By Tom McFeely, National Catholic Reigster, January 26, 2009
Call it a double blow for the culture of death.
In a statement released in conjunction with his signing Friday of an executive order overturning the pro-life Mexico City Policy, President Barack Obama pledged to work with Congress to restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
U.S. funding of the U.N. agency — which works in close collaboration with International Planned Parenthood Federation and other major abortion providers to promote its “reproductive rights” and population control programs — has been suspended for seven years because of UNFPA’s participation in China’s notorious “one-child” program of population control.
The Chinese population control program is known to involve coercive sterilizations and coerced abortions.
Late today, the Daily Blog contacted Steve Mosher, president of the Population Research Council, about Obama’s bid to re-fund UNFPA.
The Population Research Institute sponsored an investigation in 2001 that documented abuses in the population control program operating in China’s Sihui County, with UNFPA’s support. The findings of that investigation are discussed in the Population Research Institute video embedded at the start of this post.
After the Population Research Institute disclosed what its investigation had unearthed, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell commissioned a State Department investigation of UNFPA’s involvement with China’s population control program.
On the basis of the findings of the State Department investigation, Powell requested Congress in 2002 to halt UNFPA’s funding.
Said Powell in a 2002 letter to Congress, “UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”
Mosher replied to the Daily Blog’s request by referring to the Population Research Institute’s statement in November urging Obama not to restore UNFPA’s funding.
“It would be a shame if Obama abandons both the women of China–and one of his most high-profile backers–in the name of the failed ideology of population control,” Mosher said in the statement. “Americans don’t want their money going to an organization — the UNFPA — which works hand-in-glove with China’s population control police as they drag women off for forced abortions and forced sterilizations.”
THURSDAY, JAN. 29, 2009