THE SUNDAY HOMILY: Man Does Not Live By Bread Alone
Published February 28, 2009 | 
Fr. James Farfaglia, February 27, 2009
Satan’s greatest triumph is that he has caused many people to no longer believe that he really exists. Jesus tells us who he is when he said: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10: 18). My dear friends, Satan is real and his actions in the world are very real.
The Second Vatican Council made this point very clear when it said, “The whole of man’s history has been the story of our combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God’s grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity” (Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 37.2).
As the holy season of Lent begins, this Sunday’s liturgy reminds us that we are engaged in a daily and dramatic battle between Christ and Satan, between good and evil. What is at stake in this battle is our eternal salvation. Satan will do all that he can do separate us from Christ. Jesus described him as the father of lies. “He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8: 14).
Today’s gospel relates that in the desert, Satan tempted Jesus three times. Satan launched three attacks against our Lord. Now that we are beginning our Lenten practices, we might consider taking a closer look at the nature of the first temptation. What human failing does it address?
And the tempter came and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread’. But he answered, ‘It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4: 3-4).
We all know that one of the toughest problems that we must face as a nation is materialism. It is difficult to live as true disciples of Jesus in a materialistic society. Every day we are bombarded with materialism. Our market driven society urges us to possess more and more things. Given this all- pervasive temptation we must always remember that “man does not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”.
Let’s take a practical look at how we can fight against the temptation of materialism. How can we use the things of this world correctly and keep our focus on the things of eternity?
The first practical step is to live within our means. Most people probably receive three or four invitations a week to sign up for another credit card. This is the trap. Advertisements from credit card companies give us the impression that we can spend without any financial consequences at all. We need to discipline ourselves by living debt free. Excessive use of credit cards only foments greed and irresponsibility. One credit card for emergencies or a frequent flyer miles program is enough.
The second practical step we must take to avoid materialism is to understand that work is only a means to provide what is necessary for our families and ourselves. Many feel that their work is the most important aspect of their lives. When people put too much emphasis on their career, family life suffers and marriages flounder.
In conversations with my friends from Spain or Mexico, inevitably we wind up discussing the differences between our respective countries and cultures. My friends have often told me that the difference between their countries and ours is that in their countries they work in order to live while here we live only to work. Simple words, but they express a lot of truth.
The third practical step we must take is to work at being content with what we have. Is new furniture really necessary? Is it necessary to move into a nicer neighborhood? Is it necessary to build a new house? Is it really necessary to re-decorate, re-do the kitchen once more, or install new carpeting or tile? When does it stop? Why do we hunger for novelty? Why do we rationalize that we are improving the quality of family life? Why are we spending all that money when we already have nice homes with everything that is necessary for a comfortable life?
Spending money, particularly spending money painlessly, using the magic of plastic, the credit or debit card can easily become an addictive behavior. Buying, spending, possessing all provide that rush of adrenaline, the feeling of power. We need to be very cautious about all of this.
Satan will do everything that he can do to confuse and distract us. Materialism pulls us away from God and the spiritual care of our souls. The constant temptation to buy and possess more and more things pulls us away from the essential things of life. If we were to care for our souls the way we care for our material things, many of us would soon be saints.
“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”.
Charles Krauthammer: The Obamaist Manifesto
Published February 28, 2009 | ….These revolutions in health care, education and energy are not just abstract hopes. They have already taken life in Obama’s massive $787 billion stimulus package, a huge expansion of social spending constituting a down payment on Obama’s plan for remaking the American social contract…..
WASHINGTON – Not a great speech, but extremely consequential. If Barack Obama succeeds, his joint address to Congress will be seen as historic — indeed as the foundational document of Obamaism. As it stands, it constitutes the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president.
The first part of the speech, justifying his economic stabilization efforts, was mere housekeeping. The economic crisis is to Obama a technocratic puzzle that needs to be solved because otherwise he loses all popular support.
Unlike most presidents, however, he doesn’t covet popular support for its own sake. Some men become president to be someone, others to do something. This is what separates, say, a Ronald Reagan from a Bill Clinton. Obama, who once noted that Reagan altered the trajectory of America as Clinton had not, sees himself a Reagan.
Reagan came to office to do something: shrink government, lower taxes, rebuild American defenses.
Obama made clear Tuesday night that he intends to be equally transformative. His three goals: universal health care, universal education, and a new green energy economy highly funded and regulated by government.
(1) Obama wants to be to universal health care what Lyndon Johnson was to Medicare. Obama has publicly abandoned his once-stated preference for a single-payer system as in Canada and Britain. But that is for practical reasons. In America, you can’t get there from here directly.
Instead, Obama will create the middle step that will lead ultimately and inevitably to single-payer. The way to do it is to establish a reformed system that retains a private health-insurance sector but offers a new government-run plan (based on benefits open to members of Congress) so relatively attractive that people voluntarily move out of the private sector, thereby starving it. The ultimate result is a system of fully socialized medicine. This will likely not happen until long after Obama leaves office. But he will be rightly recognized as its father.
(2) Beyond cradle-to-grave health care, Obama wants cradle-to-cubicle education. He wants far more government grants, tax credits and other financial guarantees for college education — another way station to another universal federal entitlement. He lauded the country for establishing free high school education during the Industrial Revolution; he wants to put us on the road to doing the same for college during the Information Age.
(3) Obama wants to be to green energy what John Kennedy was to the moon shot, its visionary and creator. It starts with the establishment of a government-guided, government-funded green energy sector into which the administration will pour billions of dollars from the stimulus package and billions more from budgets to come.
But just picking winners and losers is hardly sufficient for a president who sees himself as world-historical. Hence the carbon cap-and-trade system he proposed Tuesday night that will massively restructure American industry and create a highly regulated energy sector.
These revolutions in health care, education and energy are not just abstract hopes. They have already taken life in Obama’s massive $787 billion stimulus package, a huge expansion of social spending constituting a down payment on Obama’s plan for remaking the American social contract.
Obama sees the current economic crisis as an opportunity. He has said so openly. And now we know what opportunity he wants to seize. Just as the Depression created the political and psychological conditions for Franklin Roosevelt’s transformation of America from laissez-faireism to the beginnings of the welfare state, the current crisis gives Obama the political space to move the still (relatively) modest American welfare state toward European-style social democracy.
In the European Union, government spending has declined slightly, from 48 percent to 47 percent of GDP during the last 10 years. In the U.S., it has shot up from 34 percent to 40 percent. Part of this explosive growth in U.S. government spending reflects the emergency private-sector interventions of a Republican administration. But the clear intent was to make the massive intrusion into the private sector temporary and to retreat as quickly as possible. Obama has radically different ambitions.
The spread between Europe and America in government-controlled GDP has already shrunk from 14 percent to 7 percent. Two terms of Obamaism and the difference will be zero.
Conservatives take a dim view of the regulation-bound, economically sclerotic, socially stagnant, nanny state that is the European Union. Nonetheless, Obama is ascendant and has the personal mandate to take the country where he wishes. He has laid out boldly the Brussels-bound path he wants to take.
Let the debate begin.
Charles Krauthammer is a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.
How Should Healthcare be Reformed?
Published February 28, 2009 | Health Care Reform Video
Posted by Tom McFeely, National Catholic Register, Feb. 27, 2009
I wrote a couple of articles last fall for the Register’s ongoing series on health care reform.
The series was suspended shortly before the election for two reasons: One, it seemed best to hold off more articles until after we knew who our new president would be.
And two, because my new duties as the Daily Blog’s chief blogger precluded my writing any more installments at that time.
But fear not, the Register plans to pick up the series where we left off now that the plans of President Barack Obama and Congress regarding health care reform the plans of President Barack Obama and Congress regarding health care reform are coming into clearer focus.
Our next article about health care reform will be published in a future issue of the Register.
In the meantime, please direct your attention to the video embedded at the start of this post for a detailed discussion of the area of health reform. The video features Dr. Donald Condit, a Catholic orthopedic surgeon in Grand Rapids, Mich., and an associate professor at Michigan State University.
The video has been posted on the Internet by the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, for whom Dr. Condit serves as a policy expert. The Acton Institute’s Christian Social Thought Series will be publishing Dr. Condit’s monograph on Health Care Reform in 2009.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily/health_care_reform_video/
Another Day, Another Trillion; $3.6 Trillion of Them
Published February 28, 2009 | Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, February 27, 2009
In bold white script, the words “A New Era of Responsibility” are splashed across the cover of the President’s new budget proposal. Unfortunately, the responsibilities outlined throughout its 142 pages
are ours--all $3.6 trillion of them.
In five weeks on the job, President Obama is on his way to racking up more national debt than President Bush did in five years (2001-2006). Under this spending plan, America would be saddled with a $1.8 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009, the highest in U.S. history.
This administration seems to operate under the slogan: Why quit while you’re behind? Big government is back–along with big taxes, big promises, and what will certainly be big disappointments when generation after generation of taxpayers get the bill.
Among the budget highlights are some broad social policy shifts, including:
- a “down payment” on government-controlled health care ($634 billion),
- “greener” government through pricy climate research and buildings ($12.3 billion),
- another $5 million to Medicaid “family planning” efforts,
- a second, more costly bank bailout ($750 billion),
- and projected revenue from a “cap and trade” clamp on carbon emissions.
Today’s edition of the D.C. Examiner itemizes the cost to American taxpayers in an invoice from the President, which totals $7,371,000,000,000.00. How does Obama expect to pay for everything? Charles Hurt of the New York Post writes, “Obama’s budget schemes to drain staggering amounts of money from people who worked for it and steer it to people who didn’t.” According to some estimates, Americans can expect $1.5 trillion in tax increases by 2019. Obviously, one of the immediate casualties of the Obama era will be President Bush’s tax cuts, which have provided real relief for American families. Although FRC lobbied to make the cuts permanent, they are almost certain to expire next year. The wealthy (those making $250,000 a year or more) are scheduled to take a punishing blow for their success with hikes in capital gains taxes, income taxes, employer taxes, and the resurrection of the estate tax.
But perhaps the most troubling element of the President’s proposal is a deliberate–and debilitating–attack on charitable giving. To the dismay of people across the political spectrum, the White House has asked for a 20% reduction in the amount that upper-income people can deduct from their taxes for making charitable donations. For organizations already feeling the crunch of the recession, this could be a killing blow.
Under the current plan, no one would be immune. The new code would affect everything from think tanks to food banks. As the President is well aware, the pain would be particularly acute for the community of religious conservatives, who are more generous than political liberals in every measurable way. The move would hurt traditional-values charities most, since the government is already funding the far Left’s agenda on abortion, environmentalism, welfare, the arts, and “family planning” with billions of tax dollars every year.
In effect, Obama would be squeezing out any programs that are not government approved. He claims the move would bring in roughly $32 billion a year–but at a much larger cost to philanthropy as a whole. If the provision passes, the White House would be well on its way to replacing the work of churches, nonprofits, and social service agencies with more government programs, which studies have proven to be a poor and ineffective substitute. Americans should be outraged. If there’s one place that doesn’t need our charity, it’s Washington.
‘Define Conservatism’: 13-Year-Old Author Jonathan Krohn Gets Standing Ovation at CPAC
Published February 28, 2009 | DEFINE CONSERVATIVISM:
“It is an ideology of protecting the people and the people’s rights.”
TODAY’S SAINT: Blessed Daniel Brottier (1876-1936)
Published February 28, 2009 | Born in France in 1876, Daniel was ordained in 1899 and began a teaching career. That didn’t satisfy him long. He wanted to use his zeal for the gospel far beyond the classroom. He joined the missionary Congregation of the Holy Spirit, which sent him to Senegal, West Africa. After eight years there, his health was suffering. He was forced to return to France, where he helped raise funds for the construction of a new cathedral in Senegal.
At the outbreak of World War I Daniel became a volunteer chaplain and spent four years at the front. He did not shrink from his duties. Indeed, he risked his life time and again in ministering to the suffering and dying. It was miraculous that he did not suffer a single wound during his 52 months in the heart of battle.
After the war he was invited to help establish a project for orphaned and abandoned children in a Paris suburb. He spent the final 13 years of his life there. He died in 1936 and was beatified by Pope John Paul II in Paris only 48 years later.
GOSPEL & MEDITATION: Forgiveness: The First Step to Love
Published February 28, 2009 | Saturday after Ash Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2009
Father Paul Hubert, LC
Luke 5:27-32
Jesus saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the customs post. He said to him, “Follow me.” And leaving everything behind, he got up and followed him. Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were at table with them. The Pharisees and their scribes complained to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”
Introductory Prayer: Sunny days, cloudy days and rainy days all come from you, Lord. You surprise us each day as you make each day different to bring us closer to your coming, in which we hope. Lord, your love explains everything and guides all things. I wish to respond to your infinite mercy and love by loving you more each day.
Petition: Lord you know how difficult it is for me to forgive. Help me to do so always.
1. The Doctor Who Cures the Sick. What a great reply: “I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.” It is a statement open to all humanity in need of redemption. It is an affirmation that shows us that God is not exclusive. Christ has come for all sinners, and he extends to everyone his call to repent and be transformed by his grace. It shows us that Christ wants to reach everybody and forgive everybody. He is not like us who discriminate and hold grudges. When someone sins more, God makes particular efforts to reach that person and offer his pardon and his elevating grace. What an example for us to follow when we have difficult moments in our dealings with others! Christ teaches us patience. Christ teaches us that we must love and build bridges whenever the opportunity arises.
2. We Must Evangelize the Sick. Christ sets the example and sends us to evangelize people who do not know him, or who offend him unknowingly, half-knowingly, or even knowingly. Interestingly enough, it is those who oppose Christ whom he calls the “righteous,” because they are inflexible, and their criteria cannot be bent. Christ calls us, on the other hand, to forgive, as often as is necessary (Luke 17:4). We need to learn how to forgive in a world that tells us to be tough and not to let anything get past us.
3. Forgiveness Can Only Come from Love and Lead to Love. This Gospel reminds us of the story of the adulterous woman who was brought before Jesus (cf. John 8: 2-10). The Law of Moses was clear, yet Jesus knew that something had to be changed in order for people to be able to reach heaven. He knew that only forgiveness and love for everyone would unite all people in paradise. He knew all people had sinned, and therefore they could not accuse someone else without indirectly accusing themselves. That is why Christ answered to those who accused the adulterous woman, “Let the one who is sinless cast the first stone” (John 8:7). We are all sinners. We all need to be forgiven and to forgive one another. We all need to allow love to invade our hearts so that it may be the bond that reunites us.
Conversation with Christ: Thank you, Lord, for giving me the solution to my life. Help me to forgive wholeheartedly those who have done me wrong. Help me to love them, pray for them and do good to them even though they hinder and harm me. Help me to strive tirelessly to bring to the world your solution to division, discrimination, hatred and war.
Resolution: I will think of the people I dislike or am indifferent to, and I will consider at least one of their good qualities. If the opportunity arises, I will speak well of them, and if I can, I will do a good deed for them.
Bishop Martino Writes Sen. Casey Over Vote Against Mexico City Policy
Published February 28, 2009 | CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, Feb 28, 2009
Washington D.C. (CNA) – Bishop of Scranton Joseph Martino has again written Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Bob Casey concerning his vote against the Mexico City Policy, saying he has “deep concern” that the senator’s staff is misrepresenting the vote as pro-life. Bishop Martino asked for “utter clarity” on matters that pertain to taking innocent life.
The bishop’s second letter was made public on the same day the Diocese of Scranton published an Official Notice on the Reception of Communion. The notice emphasizes the need for communicants to receive Holy Communion worthily and the need for ministers to ensure the Sacrament’s worthy reception.
Sen. Casey, a self-described pro-life Democrat, recently voted against an amendment to the Children’s Health Insurance Act which would have reinstated the Mexico City Policy reversed by President Barack Obama on Jan. 23.
The Mexico City Policy bars U.S. taxpayer funding of international groups that promote or perform abortions. Continue reading
Official: Obama to Reverse Bush Abortion Regulation
Published February 27, 2009 | The Bush administration instituted a rule in its last days that strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse for moral reasons to perform abortions.
FOXNEWS, FEB. 27, 2009
President Obama wants to rescind a Bush administration rule that strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse for moral reasons to perform abortions.
A Health and Human Services official said Friday the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, opening a 30-day comment period for advocates, medical groups and the public. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the notice has not been completed.
The Bush administration instituted the rule in its last days, and it was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it.
The news that he was doing so drew praise from abortion-rights supporters and condemnation from groups opposed to abortion.
“It would be a horrible move. These regulations were a long time coming,” said Tom McClusky, a vice president at Family Research Council. “What they seek to do is protect patients, nurses, doctors and other health care professionals from being forced to violate their consciences.”
McClusky and other abortion opponents said the Bush regulation clarified federal policies and raised awareness about the rights of medical providers to follow their consciences. But abortion rights advocates said it was vague and overly broad, and could reduce access to other services — allowing a drug store clerk to refuse to sell birth control pills, for example.
“I think it’s a wonderful step,” Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., who co-chairs the Congressional Pro-choice Caucus and has introduced legislation to overturn the regulation, said of Obama’s move.
“That rule was actually a poorly drafted last-minute attempt to, I think, restrict health care access and I think it would have had far-reaching and unintended consequences.”
Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Obama administration supports those laws, said the HHS official.
The Bush administration’s rule adds a requirement that institutions that get federal money certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore those rights.
But the Obama administration was concerned that the Bush regulation could also be used to refuse birth control, family planning services and counseling for vaccines and transfusions.
“The administration supports a tightly written conscience clause,” said the HHS official. “While we are concerned about the Bush rule, we also understand there might be a need to clarify existing laws.”
The administration will review comments from the public before making a final decision. Options range from repealing the regulation to writing a new one with a narrower scope.
The administration’s move was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.
Gov. Jinal: There is “…an Honest and Fundamental Disagreement….
Published February 27, 2009 | Quote of the week
Patriot Post, Friday Digest – Vol. 09 No. 08
–Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
ObamaNation — The USSA: “The Era of Profound Irresponsibility…”
Published February 27, 2009 | ….in Obama’s words, “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America.” . . . Obama is accomplishing this socialist transformation at lightning pace under cover of “responding to the economic crisis” in order to “save or create 3.5 million jobs.” ….
Prior to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, some Republicans complained that identifying him as a socialist, which I have done since he announced his presidential aspirations, was “too extreme.” Shortly after his election, the same lot insisted, “He’s our president now. We should show him respect.”
It is notable, however, that I have not heard a single such complaint since BHO’s inauguration.
In fact, Newsweek magazine ran a cover story about Obama’s so-called “Recovery Act” legislation proclaiming, “We are all Socialists now.” Of course, because Newsweek is suffering from an acute case of revenue shortfall, a tabloid shock cover like the aforementioned is to be expected.
“The era of profound irresponsibility…”But there is no shortfall of truth in my claim that the “stimulus bill” has much less to do with economic recovery than it does with, in Obama’s words, “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America.”
Obama is accomplishing this socialist transformation at lightning pace under cover of “responding to the economic crisis” in order to “save or create 3.5 million jobs.” (Note the clever construction “save or create,” which is to say that even if there is no net increase in jobs, he’ll still take credit for having saved 3.5 million jobs.)
Despite Obama’s claims, this ruse wasn’t a “crisis spending bill.” Nor does it provide “economic growth,” and it certainly has no legitimate “bipartisan support,” with only three RINO senators from among 219 Republican legislators having been swayed by BHO’s incessant fearmongering.
In fact, some Republican and Democrat governors have since calculated the costs associated with accepting the redistribution of “your money” by Obama, and they’re saying, “no thanks,” because the terms of acceptance would mean significant state tax increases on their citizens.
In my home state of Tennessee, Republican Sen. Bob Corker concurs with the Congressional Budget Office’s summary that “the [Obama] legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast.” Sen. Corker has determined that it will not create any new jobs in Tennessee and is assisting Democrat Gov. Phil Bredesen with a determination of how to minimize the impact of the federal mandates.
Indeed, when all the mandates and interest expenses of BHO’s programs are calculated, his legislation amounts to more than $3 trillion of “your money” being redistributed to his constituencies.
In an effort to restore the consumer and market confidence so essential to economic recovery, Obama addressed Congress, and by extension the nation, Tuesday night, saying, “While our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”
But even Obama’s messianic standing among his adoring adolescents has begun to wane, as it becomes increasingly apparent that he’s far more fragrance than substance.
Of course, he spent less time cheerleading than he did promoting his next stab at the free market. To wit, a $3.6 trillion budget for the coming year that includes significant military cuts and significant tax increases on the innovators and entrepreneurs who dared turn a profit during the “era of profound irresponsibility,” but which also expands government funding for his constituencies so much that it stands to increase the federal deficit to $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3 percent of GDP.
The U.S. has not been saddled with a deficit representing that much of our GDP since we were fighting a World War on two fronts in 1942.
Regarding the “transformation of America,” Obama proclaimed that “the day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here. Now is the time to act boldly and wisely — to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity.”
The New York Times gleefully summed it up: “The budget that President Obama proposed is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters.”
“The ideas of Ronald Reagan?” Well, only in that President Reagan’s ideas were dominated by the foundational principles of our nation — individual liberty, constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, free enterprise, strong national defense and traditional American values.
BHO also continued his Herculean effort to redefine the reality that the current economic debacle is not the result of Democrat housing policies, insisting, “I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions.”
Obama added, “CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to … buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.” (For the record, Michelle has been renovating the White House, and Barack has been crisscrossing the country in his private 747 with his “dog and pony” show, all with taxpayer money.)
Regarding Obama’s “war on success,” The Wall Street Journal notes, “A tax policy that confiscated 100 percent of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 (before the recession started) would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable ‘dime’ of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.”
Needless to say, there will be far fewer folks with earnings over $500,000 this year.
In addition to tax increases on “the wealthy” (which all get passed along in the form of increases in the cost of products and services), Obama proposes to limit tax deductions. In other words, he doesn’t want billions of dollars in tax-deductible donations to go toward charitable ministries and services, because his administration knows better how to allocate “your money” for social services.
For all his lofty grandstanding about private-sector greed (a.k.a. “free enterprise”), Obama hasn’t proposed any salary rollbacks in the executive or legislative branches, much less big layoffs. Conversely, Obama’s proposals will swell the ranks of the central government to unprecedented levels, all paid for with your tax dollars.
So much for the federal government tightening its belt amid massive salary cutbacks and layoffs in the private sector, or, should I say, out here in the real world.
Despite all this, the biggest expansion of government programs and spending in history, Obama had the audacity to say, “There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. … We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences.”
One might fairly conclude that Obama is attempting to spend our constitutional republic — and its assurance of individual liberty predicated on individual responsibility — right out of existence.
Indeed, it’s no coincidence that Obama’s recovery plan is similar in principle to Red China’s emergency $586 billion “stimulus package,” emphasizing massive government growth and infrastructure projects.
In doing some research this week, I came across the bios of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Wilson Reagan on Obama’s White House Web site.
Under Roosevelt, one finds accolades for all the government spending he enacted in an effort to end the Great Depression (the Obama model) but not one word about the lack of effectiveness of any of those programs. Of course, not even the most zealous Leftists among Obama’s historical revisionists in the White House would dare make such a claim, because they’re unable to find a reputable economist who stands behind FDR’s New Deal policies.
On the other hand, when I visited the Reagan bio, much to my amazement and amusement, I found this information: “Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit.” (Translation: Congressional Democrats refused to cut spending for “social programs.”) “A renewal of national self-confidence by 1984 helped Reagan and Bush win a second term with an unprecedented number of electoral votes. In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes.”
The Reagan bio concludes, “At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression. Overall, the Reagan years saw a restoration of prosperity, and the goal of peace through strength seemed to be within grasp.”
So, what is one to conclude about the policies of Obama versus Reagan? Well, Obama’s own White House Web site says it all.
(Oh, and I took a peek at Obama’s bio and almost suffered a myocardial infarction after reading this opening line: “His story is the American story — values from the heartland, a middle-class upbringing in a strong family….” What? Barack who?)
Despite Newsweek’s cover proclamation, we are NOT all socialists now. In fact, there are more than 60 million gun-owning Patriots across this nation, many of whom have taken sacred oaths “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Of those, more than a few stand ready to honor that oath.
After all, in the words of John Adams, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
Radical and thus uncomfortable as this fact may be, there is, nonetheless, a groundswell of discontent across the nation — millions of Patriots who reject Obama’s agenda for transforming the USA into the USSA. In the first Revolutionary War, George Washington mustered fewer than one percent of his countrymen against the mighty army of King George at the onset of hostilities. A far larger percentage of Americans stand ready to defend liberty today.
A year ago, I could not have forecast that the tenor of discontent would have reached such fervor that one now ponders, “Is insurrection the only answer?” I hope not, but it is the 800-pound gorilla at the table, and a growing number of Americans are taking note — and I am not referring to only those who have lost jobs or incomes. At this writing, every Patriot I know, employed or not, subscribes to the sentiments of Thomas Paine, who penned these inimitable words in 1776: “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”
Indeed.
P.S. For those who have been most grievously affected by the liberal agendas that seeded the housing and financial market crisis, those of you who have lost your job, had your income cut and your savings and retirement funds gutted, help is just a click away. Visit the Federal Election Commission’s campaign finance disclosure page, and under the map, select the search criterion menu “Donor’s Name” and change that criterion to “Zip Code.” Enter your zip code and click “Go.” (This search may take up to a minute, so be patient.) Once the search is complete, select the column to search by “Candidate Name,” and scroll down to see all the donors in your neighborhood who supported Obama. Since they enabled Obama to redistribute your wealth, surely they would be willing to share some of their own to cover your expenses until Obama’s recovery plan has restored your job, your income, your savings and your retirement fund. (Heck, you might even find, as I did, that one of your neighbors far exceeded the legal giving limits to Obama’s campaign.)
April 10, 2008: Obama the Magician; Master of Misdirection.
Published February 27, 2009 | By Bud White, No Quarter, April 10, 2008
One of the things most disconcerting about Obama is that he is the Master of Misdirection. Like a magician who distracts you in order to pull off a trick, Obama is the opposite of who he claims to be.
Here are some examples:
After the Wright story broke, Obama flatly told Anderson Cooper that he never heard Wright make those statements.
Then he lectures us on race, admits hearing those statements and, here’s the fake-out, equates Wright’s unacceptable hate sermons with Ferraro making an obvious observation about his candidacy.
Obama is running an ad in Pennsylvania touting the fact that he doesn’t take money from oil companies. Did you see that? No one takes money from oil companies; it’s illegal. But Obama does take money from oil executives.
Obama attacked Hillary on NAFTA while campaigning in economically troubled Ohio, and then a member of his inner circle tells the Canadians that all this talk is just politics. Vous devez être plaisante?
Obama is running as the unity candidate. He unexpectedly loses New Hampshire to Hillary and then his campaign runs a relentlessly negative and racially charged campaign heading into South Carolina. They accuse the Clintons of being racists. Come again?
While in the Illinois State Senate, Obama votes repeatedly against the right’s of gun owners. Now he is touting his credentials as a constitutional scholar and his belief in the 2nd Amendment. Watch out, Pennsylvania sportsmen!
Obama claims he is pro-choice, but when he was in the Illinois State Senate he voted ‘present’ on issues of choice — telling us he was keeping the seat warm but not voting to support women’s rights.
Obama’s campaign is based largely on one speech he gave in 2002. But he has done absolutely nothing to end the war in Iraq since entering the Senate in 2005, except to remind us about the speech he gave.
Obama tells us he believes every vote should be counted, but it’s his campaign that is the only thing holding up counting Michigan and Florida, or having a re-vote. Which is it, Senator Obama? Do Democrats count votes or not? A stolen nomination is a lost election.
This tiring magic act never ends. Some are fooled by the tricks; others are beginning to see.
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/10/obama-the-magician/
Hide the Amendments
Published February 27, 2009 | By W. James Antle, III, The American Spectator …Will restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion disappear during the congressional appropriations process?…
So far, the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress have preferred to avoid high-profile fights on contentious social issues. After being dusted off for the campaign trail, the Freedom of Choice Act and gays in the military appear to have been put back on the shelf. Better to live to fight the culture wars another day than to give their opponents an easy target.
That doesn’t mean that social liberals in the White House and Congress aren’t moving quietly behind the scenes, however. President Obama waited a couple days after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to issue an executive order rescinding a ban on federal funding of organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas — either to quiet controversy or in deference to his eminent pro-life supporters. But what’s important is that he ultimately issued the executive order.
Now beleaguered pro-life members of Congress are gearing up for another fight. They worry that during the upcoming spending marathon, language preventing taxpayer funding of abortion may be deleted from appropriations bills in committee. Worse, they fear that a circumscribed amendment process will keep them from putting the gutted pro-life riders back in before final passage.
The biggest item that may be in jeopardy is the Hyde Amendment. Enacted under a Democratic Congress in 1976 and repeatedly renewed under presidents of both parties, it prohibits Medicaid funding of elective abortions. Advocates on both sides of the issue believe it has prevented numerous abortions, and the underlying policy has the support of many voters who consider themselves pro-choice. Also at issue are riders blocking taxpayer funding of human embryo experimentation and conscience clauses for medical professionals who do not wish to participate in abortions.
On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of legislators — three Republicans and three Democrats — held a press conference on Capitol Hill to announce that over 180 House members from both parties had signed a letter demanding that these pro-life policies either be left intact or subject to a direct vote by the full House. “We respectfully request that the pro-life riders be included in any legislation reported out of the Appropriations Committee,” the members wrote to the House leadership. “If this Congress intends to rescind these riders, at a minimum the American people deserve a full debate with an up-or-down vote.”
The initiative has been spearheaded by Congressmen Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), with the backing of Congressmen Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.). Their concern is that however controversial a direct assault on the Hyde Amendment would be, these details will get lost in the process of crafting mammoth spending bills. “In the past, we might have lost a vote on stem cells,” Jordan told TAS. “Now even votes on taxpayer funding and partial-birth are up in the air.”
The Hyde Amendment hasn’t been in serious danger since 1993, the last time there was a new Democratic president and Congress. Back then, Medicaid only paid for abortions when necessary to save the mother’s life. A rape and incest exception was added to the Hyde Amendment as a compromise, the amendment was renewed rather than repealed, and the prohibition on taxpayer funding of most abortions remained in place.
Pro-lifers may hope history repeats itself but they aren’t taking anything for granted. Although happy with the bipartisan support he and Shuler have already garnered, Jordan describes this Democratic majority as “much more cohesive” than those that have existed in the past, contrasting the small number of Blue Dog Democrats who voted against Obama’s stimulus package with the larger number of Boll Weevils who voted for Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts. He might also have mentioned the Democrats who voted against the Clinton tax increase in 1993. The first Clinton budget passed the House by just one vote despite an 80-vote Democratic majority.
Nevertheless, there are still about two dozen pro-life Democrats in the House. “The precise number depends on the issue,” Party of Death author Ramesh Ponnuru recently explained in National Review. “In the last Congress, only 16 Democrats voted against providing taxpayer dollars for stem-cell research that destroys human embryos. Thirty-one voted against a bill to allow the cloning of embryos to be destroyed in such research.”
There are many more House Democrats who come from districts where generic support for Roe might be politically feasible but taxpayer funding of abortion is not. Most pro-choice Republicans would vote in favor of retaining the Hyde Amendment as well, on the grounds that the right to choose doesn’t confer a right to other people’s money to pay for one’s choices. The other riders vary in support, but all of them would stand a chance in a House vote.
That’s why House pro-lifers are already mobilizing to make sure that, at the very least, they get one. “In football, there may be a team that everyone expects to win but they still have to suit up and play. Sometimes, the other team wins,” Jordan says. “All we’re asking for is to let us suit up and get in the game.”
Obama’s Economic Vision Reminiscent of Karl Marx’s
Published February 27, 2009 | Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 2/26/2009
WASHINGTON, DC - A young rising star in the Republican Party has laid out a new conservative vision for the country.
Congressman Paul Ryan (R- Wisconsin) warned attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference that President Obama and Democrats in Congress are seeking a “Europeanized economy” by ushering in greater government control of the energy industry and the healthcare system.
In his speech, Ryan blasted President Obama’s actions to address the financial crisis and economic recession, including the $787 billion “stimulus” package, which Ryan believes will only stimulate more government debt and tax increases. Ryan also criticized Obama’s new mortgage plan, arguing it bails out people who borrowed more than they could afford.
“But if you acted responsibly, if you saved your money and you kept paying your mortgage like 93 percent of the rest of Americans do, you’re out of luck,” Ryan stated. “You’re not getting a lower house payment, and the government will force you to sacrifice even more through higher taxes to bail out reckless lenders and irresponsible borrowers.”
The Wisconsin Republican inferred that Obama’s plan may sound familiar to those who follow political history. “You see, what we have here is an update of [Karl] Marx’s famous slogan — ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to his needs.’
Now we have ‘from the suckers who followed the rules, to those who borrowed beyond their means.’”
Ryan says while Democrats want to impose a more intrusive state — “something out of an Ayn Rand novel” — he is proposing an alternative conservative vision that involves “junking the tax code,” cutting spending, as well as reforming healthcare, the federal budget, and the regulatory system.
Valuing the Individual Over Government
Published February 27, 2009 | 
WASHINGTON, DC – The new chairman of the Republican Party says the conservative movement is alive and well, but that it must become a revolution.
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele is calling for a revolution of new ideas and opportunities that value the rights of the individual over government.
Steele delivered a rousing speech Thursday night at the Conservative Political Action Conference 2009 that implored conservatives to no longer let others define who they are and what they believe.
“Tomorrow we go forth and advocate for lower government spending — and then we make sure it happens. Tomorrow we go forward and advocate for ethics in government — and [then we] make sure it happens,” Steele urged.
And then to applause, he added: “Tomorrow we go forth and we advocate for the poor and those who are trying to lift themselves up out of poverty every day — without the help of government, but by their own two hands and the help of their neighbors and friends.”
Steele also issued a challenge to conservatives between the ages of 18 and 30.
“I’m charging young conservatives in this room and across this country — tomorrow morning to go forth as the champions of freedom; to go forth and defend that freedom and the freedom of every American to own their own property, to build their own business, to grow their communities, and to live free and die free without the government taking what they have worked for.”
Steele says the goal of the Republican Party is the “transformation of America from a philosophy that promotes dependence on big government and the politics of victimization to one of new hope and prosperity.”
MALKIN: ACORN’s Foreclosure ‘Victims’
Published February 27, 2009 | 
It shouldn’t be long before ACORN recruits “Octomom” Nadya Suleman to serve as the radical left-wing group’s foreclosure poster child. The jobless, unmarried mother of 14 faces eviction from her home in two weeks. Suleman’s mother, who owns the residence, hasn’t sent a mortgage check in 10 months and owes $23,000 in back payments. Nonetheless, the plastic surgery-enhanced, welfare-dependent Octomom was photographed this week at a video store splurging on games for her brood.
With her warped financial priorities, Suleman fits right in with the militant moochers at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. As I reported last week, ACORN launched a lawless “civil disobedience” campaign across the country to demand their housing entitlement rights. With this well-oiled propaganda campaign buoying his efforts, President Obama used his State of the Nation address last night to advance his push for a massive government home foreclosure plan that will help “responsible homeowners avoid foreclosure.”
But a closer look at ACORN’s sob stories shows that the prototypical foreclosure “victims” don’t deserve an ounce of sympathy — or a cent of our money.
Earlier this week, ACORN activists broke into a foreclosed home in Baltimore. With a mob cheering and camera crew taping, Baltimore ACORN leader Louis Beverly busted a padlock and jimmied the door open at 315 South Ellwood Ave. The home once belonged to restaurant worker Donna Hanks, who assailed her evil bank for raising her mortgage by $300 and leaving her on the street. “This is our house now,” Beverly declared with Hanks by his side at the break-in.
What ACORN didn’t tell you: Hanks’ house was sold in June 2008 for $192,000. She bought the two-story home in the summer of 2001 for $87,000. At some point during the next five years, she refinanced the original home loan for $270,000. Where did all that money go? (Hint: Think house-sized ATM.)
The property initially went into foreclosure proceedings in the spring of 2006. Hanks soon filed for bankruptcy and agreed to a Chapter 13 plan to pay back her bank and other creditors. In September 2006, the bankruptcy court ordered Hanks’ employer to deduct $340/month from her salary to pay down the debt. Hanks did not comply with the legally binding plan. In December 2007, the loan servicer issued a notice of default on nearly $7,000 past due.
While she was reneging on her mortgage IOUs, she somehow managed to collect rent on her basement (for which she was taken to court) and rack up a criminal record on charges of theft and second-degree assault. The house was sold seven months ago after two years of court-negotiated attempts to allow Hanks to dig herself out of her debt hole.
Beverly, who claims to be a foreclosure victim himself, was charged with burglary for the break-in and released. He is literally a housing thug — having been separately charged with second-degree assault and property destruction earlier this year; battery, assault, handgun possession and possession of a deadly weapon with intent to injure in 1992; and slapped with a peace order issued against him in 2006.
The Washington Post spotlighted Beverly’s and Hanks’ activism without following up on their criminal records and financial negligence. The paper also shilled for ubiquitous ACORN foreclosure “victim” Veronica Peterson of Columbia, MD, recycling uncritically her accusation that she had been tricked into buying a $545,000 home by a broker who inflated her income and misrepresented her assets. “These loans were weapons of mass destruction,” the single mom of three and home daycare provider who couldn’t keep up with her mortgage bills told the Post reporter. “They destroyed our credit, our lives, and they blew up in our face.”
But a look at court and real estate records exposed the truth. Edward Ericson, Jr., a reporter for the independent Baltimore City Paper, discovered that the “victim” — who took out a full mortgage with no down payment on a house she couldn’t afford — looks more like a predatory borrower. And amazingly, Peterson lived in the home more than year without paying rent or mortgage.
“The online court and land records show that Peterson closed on the house on Nov. 3, 2006, with two loans from Washington Mutual. The main mortgage, for $436,000, had a starting interest rate of 8.5 percent, adjusting in December….The second loan, often called a ‘piggyback,’ totaled $109,000 with an interest rate of 11.25 percent….Those two payments together would have totaled $3,386.17 per month. That’s before property taxes, upkeep, utilities, etc. Peterson would have to earn at least $50,000 per year just to make her house payments.”
The foreclosure was filed in July 2007. “The balance on the main note then was $435,735.86,” Ericson reported, plus unpaid interest and late fees — suggesting she made at most one payment on the house. “Had she made all of her payments, Peterson would have spent about $64,335 so far. Had she rented a similar place, she would have been charged around $2,500 per month — a total of $47,500 — since January 2007. Instead, she apparently paid nothing.”
Who are the real suckers? Who are the true victims? If only the reporters swallowing their stories were half as diligent about background checks of ACORN thugs as they were with Joe the Plumber.
Obama Paving Way for Health Care Rationing, Say Budget Committee Republicans
Published February 27, 2009 | By Matt Cover, CNSNews.com, February 27, 2009
The budget includes $634-billion that the administration is calling a “down payment” on a health-care reform plan that Obama wants to enact this year. Obama wants to set aside the money before announcing how the plan will work.
“It could lead to rationing,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who was initially nominated by Obama to be Commerce Secretary before he withdrew his name.
Obama’s budget assumes that the government will recognize nearly $700 billion in projected “savings” on health care spending, and it plans to use that money to expand health-care coverage for uninsured Americans.
But Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, said that the president’s claim to be able to save $700 billion a year by cutting unnecessary medical tests and procedures shows that the administration has already decided to ration health care – and knows how it plans to do it.
“If you’re going to quantify (savings) with certainty, that means you feel you’re going to ration with certainty,” Ryan said.
Ryan said the question now is how Obama plans to achieve the savings. He said it appears the president would use a centralized, bureaucratic process.
“How do they propose to go about doing this? Do they propose to set up a system where the government is in the nucleus of our healthcare system, where the government is telling providers — physicians — how to practice medicine?”
All told, Americans now spend a total of $2.4 trillion a year on health care.
Pontiff Highlights St. Paul’s Lenten Example
Published February 27, 2009 | ZENIT, FEB. 26, 2009
ROME (Zenit.org) - Benedict XVI is encouraging Catholics to live this Lent practicing prayer, almsgiving and fasting following the example of St. Paul.
The Pope affirmed this today in Mass before receiving and distributing ashes at the Basilica of St. Sabina. He began the Ash Wednesday events by presiding over a prayer assembly. A penitential procession of cardinals, bishops and laypeople traveled from St. Anselm to St. Sabina for the Eucharistic Celebration.
In the homily, the Pontiff spoke about the liturgy, which shows us “what the orientation of our spirit should be, and offers us the singular spiritual journey we are undertaking.”
He continued: “The call to conversion emerges as the dominant theme in all the components of today’s liturgy. The entrance antiphon states that the Lord forgets and forgives the sins of those who convert.”
“God’s promise is clear,” Benedict XVI affirmed, “if the people listen to the invitation to be converted, God will make his mercy triumph and his friends will be filled with innumerable favors.”
In the Gospel, he said, “Jesus puts us on guard against the pangs of vanity, which lead to ostentation and hypocrisy, to superficiality and self-complacency, and stresses the need to nurture rectitude of heart.” He added, “At the same time he shows us the means to grow in this purity of intention, by cultivating intimacy with the heavenly Father.”
God’s ambassador
Referring to this year dedicated to the Apostle to the Gentiles, the Pope pointed out: “Paul experienced in an extraordinary way the power of the grace of God, the grace of the Paschal mystery which Lent itself lives.
“He presents himself to us as ‘ambassador’ of the Lord. Who then better than he can help us to advance in a fruitful way on this path of interior conversion?”
He added, “The whole of his preaching, and even before, the whole of his missionary life, was sustained by an interior force that led back to the fundamental experience of grace.” Continue reading
It’s Obama Spreading Panic: Having Inherited a Recession, His Words Are Creating a Depression!
Published February 27, 2009 |
Ultimately, all recessions and depressions resolve themselves into crises of confidence. The instant, global, 24/7 communications of today make them ever more so. President Obama, in his pursuit of liberal big-government spending, has totally neglected the role of the president of the United States in reversing global panic. To the contrary, his every remark and the constant preoccupation of his Cabinet is to heighten the sense of crisis and to escalate the predictions of doom if we do not do as they tell us and raise spending now and taxes later.
Instead of being a firewall, reassuring Main Street even as Wall Street crashed, he has become a conduit of panic, spreading the mood of desperation from the stock exchange floor to kitchen tables across the world.
There are bad loans, which became bad assets, that lie at the root of the crisis. Through deregulation by the government and the greed of financial institutions, they spread to every portfolio in the world. But these basic facts have metastasized out of all proportion to their real harm into job and financial insecurity for every family on Earth.
It is President Obama, not the markets themselves, who has spread this fear. A global Paul Revere, he has not only aroused us, but incited fear and trepidation in his wake.
Previous panics have been global in impact, but local in focus. The world panicked because of developments in Mexico or Argentina or Thailand or South Korea. Now, with Collateralized Debt Obligations spreading the poison of a bunch of bad loans all over the world, infecting every portfolio, the panic is not only global in impact but in focus as well. Modern communications have hastened the spread of the virus of panic throughout the global bloodstream.
In addressing this panic, the president of the United States must truly be the leader of the world — showing the way back to confidence.
Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn’t seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office. This ain’t Iowa.
Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.
And then there is the matter of blame. The deeper the mess goes — and the further down his rhetoric drives it — the more imperative it becomes to lay off the blame on Bush. He must perpetually “discover” — to his shock — how deep the crisis that he inherited runs, stoking global fears in the process.
So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression. He entered office amid a disaster and he is transforming it into a catastrophe, all to pass every last bit of government spending and move us a bit further to the left before his political capital dwindles.
But the jig will be up soon. The crash of the stock market in the days since he took power (indeed, from the moment he won the election) can increasingly be attributed to his own failure to lead us in the right direction, his failed policies in addressing the recession and his own spreading of panic and fear. The market collapse makes it evident that it is Obama who is the problem, where he should, instead, be the solution.
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail, or to order a signed copy of their new best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com .
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-obama-spreading-panic-2009-02-24.html
Ex-KKK Member, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) Cagey on White House Czars
Published February 27, 2009 | Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, Feb. 26, 2009
Not everyone in Obama’s party is going merrily along with the new President’s power surge. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), the longest-serving senator in U.S. history, is openly criticizing Obama’s growing circle of policy “czars.”
Yesterday, he took his leader to task for trying to bypass the system and empower a group of unelected and unaccountable advisors. The letter to President Obama, excerpts of which were reprinted on Politico.com, accuses the administration of an executive branch “power grab.” This hierarchy “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Byrd wrote.
“At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials… As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” he argued. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”
For the latest on Obama’s leadership team, log on to www.frcblog.com and read the new additions to Change Watch. They include a man who is about to become very busy tracking congressional spending–Peter Orszag, nominee for Director of the Office of Management and Budget–as well as information on Ray LaHood, the President’s choice for Transportation Secretary.
RELATED: The Politico: Byrd: Obama in power grab
LINK TO THIS ARTICLE: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU09B20&f=PG07J01
The Ethic of Control: Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, and Planned Parenthood
Published February 27, 2009 | …Sanger’s critics often invoke what they perceive as blatant racism on her part, but this approach leads to hasty and uncritical conclusions. Sanger made few statements that explicitly profess the superiority of one race over another; rather than racism, what is at issue is elitism, a more subtle — but just as dangerous — form of bigotry…
Sanger’s critics often invoke what they perceive as blatant racism on her part, but this approach leads to hasty and uncritical conclusions. Sanger made few statements that explicitly profess the superiority of one race over another; rather than racism, what is at issue is elitism, a more subtle — but just as dangerous — form of bigotry. This bigotry is shared by many of her contemporaries in what was called the “eugenics movement: “Ellis, Sanger’s mentor, was actively involved in establishing and supporting the Eugenics Education Society of England, and Sanger approvingly quoted eugenist, and later Nazi supporter, Harry H. Laughlin in her anthology The Case for Birth Control as saying, “Society must look upon germ-plasm as belonging to society, and not solely to the individual who carries it.”
Leadership Has its Privileges… and its Responsibilities
Published February 27, 2009 | Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, February 26, 2009
Yesterday, we praised representatives from both parties who signed a letter to the Democratic leadership sponsored by Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) urging them to protect the pro-life provisions in each appropriations bill–or, at the very least, grant members the chance to vote on amendments to restore them.
Although the letter had an impressive number of signatories (181) from both parties, the Democratic leadership pushed forward with a bloated omnibus bill worth $410 billion. The legislation included $50 million for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) even though UNFPA violates the Kemp-Kasten provision by supporting China’s forced abortion and sterilization programs. House leaders blocked amendments in the Rules Committee.
While the GOP leadership signed the letter asking for votes on the pro-life riders, it chose not to exercise the one option it has as the minority party–the “motion to recommit” to amend this UNFPA provision.
If Republican leaders weren’t willing to use their right to offer this amendment and force a vote on this pro-life provision, it’s unclear whether they will fight for other pro-life measures on appropriations bills that are scheduled to move through Congress this spring. Obviously, the massive budget-busting spending bill contained many troubling provisions, but allowing liberals to gut a pro-life rider, one which was designed to prevent our complicity in China’s egregious one-child policy, is something Americans do not accept. Congressional leaders should not either.
To see the list of members who voted pro-life, visit the FRC Action blog. If your representative was one of the 24 who stood on principle, please let them know how much you appreciate their conviction by sending them a thank-you.
RELATED: Kitchen Table Blog: Pro-life or Pay Raise – which would you choose?
Bishop Martino Asks Misericordia U. to Discontinue its ‘Diversity Institute’
Published February 27, 2009 | Bishop Martino said “…homosexual activity is not condoned by the Church and should never be construed as acceptable behavior.” . . . This faithful and courageous Bishop understands his Episcopal obligation to teach and defend the truth and is unafraid of criticism…..
By Deacon Keith Fournier, Catholic Online, 2/26/2009
SCRANTON, Pa. (Catholic Online) – On October 14, 1986 the Vatican’s “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”under the leadership of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, released a clearly written and pastorally directive document entitled “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral care of Homosexual Persons”. It should be considered a “must read” by every concerned Catholic. In Paragraph 14 of that letter we read these words of warning:
“Some of these groups will use the word “Catholic” to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.”
Once again Bishop Joseph Martino of the Diocese of Scranton is in the news. This faithful and courageous Bishop understands his Episcopal obligation to teach and defend the truth and is unafraid of criticism.
He has now asked Misericordia University, a Catholic College in his Diocese, to consider “…discontinuing its Diversity Institute.” This Institute sponsored two talks given by openly homosexual activist Keith Boynkin on the campus on February 17, 2009. The Bishop had asked the University not to sponsor the talks. They did so anyway. The speaker promoted the activist homosexual agenda.
The University simply did not comply with the Bishop’s direction. Still, they continued to claim to be faithful to the teaching office of the Catholic Church. They issued a release after the event: “Misericordia University has been committed deeply to its Catholic mission and the teachings of the Catholic Church for 85 years. Misericordia University welcomes the opportunity to discuss these matters with the Bishop and his delegates at their convenience.”
Bishop Martino has responded. Here is the newest Press Release from the Diocese:
In response to Misericordia University’s assertion that it “is committed deeply to its Catholic mission,” Bishop Joseph F. Martino observes that the institution should convey to its alumni, and in fact to all the faithful of the Diocese of Scranton, its efforts to teach Catholic morality regarding sexuality and homosexuality.
In doing this, the Bishop believes the school should speak precisely, naming courses, content and even catalog numbers.
Bishop Martino’s position at this time follows his “absolute disapproval” of the university’s hosting of Keith Boykin, a proponent of morality that is disturbingly opposed to Catholic teaching.
Mr. Boykin made two presentations at the school on Feb. 17. In at least one of his talks, he discussed advocacy for issues such as same sex marriage, and he addressed the intersection of religion and sexuality. The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality was not presented at the event.
A statement from the Diocese issued the day before the talks noted that “Mr. Boykin has authored three books and all three have been nominated for a Lambda Literary award. Lambda is a legal advocacy effort for homosexual causes. Mr. Boykin is an avid supporter of same sex marriage and is an activist for positions disturbingly opposed to Catholic moral teaching.
“Bishop Martino wants Catholics of the Diocese of Scranton to know of his absolute disapproval of Misericordia University’s hosting Mr. Boykin. By honoring this speaker through allowing his positions, so antithetical to Catholic Church teaching, to be broadcast on its campus, the University has rejected all four essential characteristics of a Catholic institution of higher learning. These are:
- its Christian inspiration,
- its obligation to reflect on knowledge in light of the Catholic faith,
- its fidelity to Catholic Church teaching and
- its commitment to serve the people of God.
“The faithful of the Diocese of Scranton, the Bishop observed, should be in no doubt that Misericordia University in this instance is seriously failing in maintaining its Catholic identity.”
Misericordia responded with a statement saying it understood the Bishop’s criticism, but “Mr. Boykin’s appearance . . . is not meant to be a forum for advocacy on any singular issue.” The statement also said the University “welcomes legitimate scholarly discussion among its students, faculty, staff and guests from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.”
The statement also said that “Misericordia University is committed deeply to its Catholic mission.”
Regarding the request for specific information from Misericordia, Bishop Martino said that students attending a Catholic institution should have a clear understanding that while all persons should be treated with dignity, homosexual activity is not condoned by the Church and should never be construed as acceptable behavior.
Bishop Martino is also asking Misericordia to seriously consider discontinuing its Diversity Institute, which co-sponsored Mr. Boykin’s appearance. He had previously served for a week as a visiting scholar with the Institute.
The Bishop’s rationale is that students should learn respect for all races and cultures, but that viewpoints that are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching should not be presented under the guise of “diversity.” Doing so within a formal structure sanctioned by the institution gives the impression that these viewpoints are acceptable, or that all morality is relative.”
Bishop Martino is to be commended and deserves the support and prayer of every Catholic.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=32322
GOSPEL & MEDITATION: Time of Fasting
Published February 27, 2009 |  |
|
Friday after Ash Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2009
Father Richard Gill, LC
Matthew 9:14-15
Introductory Prayer: Lord, you know how much I need you and depend on you for everything. You know my weakness and my faults. I put all my confidence in your love and mercy. I wish to trust in your power, your promise, and your grace everyday. Today I intend, with your help, to follow you along the way of the cross with love and generosity so as to draw close to you. Petition: Lord, let me learn to embrace sacrifice as the way of reparation and purification. 1. These Are the Days. Jesus said the time would come when his disciples would fast. Now that the Lord has returned in glory to the Father, it is up to us to continue the work of salvation — “what is lacking in Christ´s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Colossians 1:24), as St. Paul says. We join our sacrifice to that of Jesus in order to imitate him and bring grace to ourselves and to others. Every Christian life must incorporate a healthy spirit of sacrifice and self-denial. 2. Feel the Hunger. The hunger we experience when we fast is a symbol of the deeper spiritual hunger we should feel for God and for heaven. This world often makes us all too comfortable, and we easily forget that this is not our true home. We are pilgrims traveling through a foreign land, far from our final resting place. Fasting reminds us of the longing a traveler has to reach his destination safely and finally to rejoice in being home for good. The true Christian looks forward with hope toward heaven, where he will rest with God forever in true happiness. He knows that all the good things this world offers are only shadows of the wonderful things God has planned for those who love him (cf. Romans 8:28). Conversation with Christ: Lord, make me generous and joyful in sacrifice, knowing that sacrifice unites me closer to you and wins the grace of conversion for so many souls you love and for whom you died. Resolution: I will choose one person I know who needs God’s grace and offer all my sacrifices today for them. |
TODAY’S SAINT: ST. ALEXANDER
Published February 27, 2009 | CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, FEBRUARY 26, 2009
St. Alexander was named bishop of Alexandria in 313 and was a champion of orthodox Catholic teaching. He dedicated his ministry to fighting against the Arian heresy which claimed that Jesus was not truly God and that there was a time when the Son, the second person of the Trinity, did not exist.
The bishop was gentle with the Arians and was exemplary in the pastoral approach he took with them for a long period before finally excommunicating Arius at a meeting of his clergy in 321.The excommunication was confirmed at a local synod in Alexandria. His epistle on the Arian heresy has survived and remains an important part of ecclesiastical literature.
It is assumed that St. Alexander also drew up the acts of the first General Council of Nicaea in 325, where Arianism was formally condemned. He died in Alexandria two years after his return from the council.
St. Alexander was also famous for his charity to the poor and his doctrine on life.
ENCORE: The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness
By Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD, TownHall.com, December 04, 2006
Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion.
Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate:
What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice.
Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character.
None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism.
In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”
The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking.
It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone.
The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship.
Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions.
With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.
It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves.
But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage.
The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche.
The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.
As is the case in all personality disturbance, defects of this type represent serious failures in development processes. The nature of these failures is detailed below. Among their consequences are the liberal mind’s relentless efforts to misrepresent human nature and to deny certain indispensable requirements for human relating.
In his efforts to construct a grand collectivist utopia—to live what Jacques Barzun has called “the unconditioned life” in which “everybody should be safe and at ease in a hundred ways”—the radical liberal attempts to actualize in the real world an idealized fiction that will mitigate all hardship and heal all wounds. (Barzun 2000).
He acts out this fiction, essentially a Marxist morality play, in various theaters of human relatedness, most often on the world’s economic, social and political stages. But the play repeatedly folds.
Over the course of the Twentieth Century, the radical liberal’s attempts to create a brave new socialist world have invariably failed. At the dawn of the Twenty-first Century his attempts continue to fail in the stagnant economies, moral decay and social turmoil now widespread in Europe.
An increasingly bankrupt welfare society is putting the U.S. on track for the same fate if liberalism is not cured there. Because the liberal agenda’s principles violate the rules of ordered liberty, his most determined efforts to realize its visionary fantasies must inevitably fall short. Yet, despite all the evidence against it, the modern liberal mind believes his agenda is good social science. It is, in fact, bad science fiction. He persists in this agenda despite its madness.
Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr, MD is the author of The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago and served for two years as a psychiatrist in the United States Army. He is currently in private practice in the Chicago area.
http://townhall.com/columnists/LyleHRossiterJrMD/2006/12/04/the_liberal_mind_the_psychological_causes_of_political_madness