“Swine Flu: Conservative Republicans Want to Kill You”

Swine flu is upon us and our government is responding to the budding crisis with its usual mix of incompetence, quiet inefficiency, and the race to see which official can cover their arse more thoroughly. In this game of bureaucratic musical chairs, the one left standing when the music stops usually ends up getting the blame if anything goes wrong.

Realizing this, our president played golf while his people danced, dodged, and weaved like prize pugilists, trying not to induce panic, but also trying not to sound too blase about the whole thing either. It was a delicate balance that none of them achieved.

At a press conference yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano — you know, the official in charge of border security who doesn’t think illegally crossing into America is a crime — did her best to cover all the bases as well as her own bureaucratic rear end. She literally spoke out of both sides of her mouth in the same sentence as she tried to explain just what the government meant by a “public health emergency:”

The term “sounds more severe than it really is,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who called the measure “standard operating procedure,” adding, “I wish we could call it a declaration of emergency preparedness.”

Why don’t we just call it “a declaration of our intent to declare a declaration that would declare a possible public health emergency unless it isn’t”?

One believes that if Napolitano had another side of her mouth through which she could have uttered more nonsense — or perhaps another orifice where noise would have been equally enlightening — she would have also used that.

It’s not really her fault. While our president was duffing his way around the links at Andrews Air Force Base, several people who might have proven to be very useful in this crisis were not present at that White House briefing. The reason they weren’t there is because they don’t exist yet — at least not in the sense that they are on the government payroll and enjoying all the perks to which senior bureaucratic officials have become accustomed.

It seems our president has been spending more time planning for the gala celebration of his 100th day in office than actually doing what we’re paying him to do. Right now, the two major crises facing America — the bank mess and swine flu — are being addressed by executive departments that have a lot of empty offices due to the singular failure of the boss to hire high-level appointees at Treasury and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to assist in dealing with the problems.

There is no HHS secretary yet, as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius awaits the pleasure of Democrats in the Senate. The president’s first choice, Tom Daschle, withdrew his name after a wee spot of trouble with the tax man, and, as is his fashion, the president went about the task of naming a replacement for him in a leisurely fashion. In fact, given that the top 19 desks at at HHS are currently vacant, it’s no wonder that the administration was caught napping on the magnitude of the swine flu problem:

U.S. public health officials did not know about a growing outbreak of swine flu in Mexico until nearly a week after that country started invoking protective measures, and didn’t learn that the deaths were caused by a rare strain of the influenza until after Canadian officials did.

It may be that our “public health officials” didn’t know because there aren’t too many of them in positions of authority at the moment. We apparently have an “acting director” of the Centers for Disease Control named Richard Besser, which I suppose is meant to inspire confidence. The fact that he has been on the job only since late January doesn’t inspire me at all. He joined Napolitano and White House homeland security adviser John Brennan at the press briefing on Sunday.

Interestingly, both Besser and Brennan are anti-terror experts. Excuse me for asking, but is there anyone in government at the moment who might be like, you know, an expert on the flu? I’m sure both men are competent public servants, but for the love of Mike, given all the holes in Obama’s health team, it may have been a confidence builder if we had seen a doctor taking questions. Don’t we have a surgeon general or something that’s supposed to do stuff like that?

Well, no, not exactly. We almost had a surgeon general, but Sanjay Gupta declined the honor. I guess he figured there were enough CNN personnel already on the White House payroll.

No HHS secretary, no top department heads at the agency, no permanent director at CDC, no surgeon general, and in charge of this flu emergency is a rather dense, but well-meaning secretary of homeland security who looks under her bed every night for fascists, neo-Nazis, Kluxers, and veterans returning from the wars who she believes will go rogue and join the militia movement.

Come to think of it, maybe if we told Napolitano that swine flu was a right-wing extremist plot hatched by abortion foes and anti-illegal immigration activists, she’d have the government whipped into shape to face this crisis in no time.

So Obama and his half-government seem to be doing all they can to both scare people to death and downplay the crisis. Nice trick if you can pull it off. But they aren’t, so it’s now time for plan B — and that’s “B” for “Blame the Republicans.”

The left-wing netnuts are getting very good at turning tragedy and crisis into a political football that bounces to their advantage. You will recall that the hurricane strength winds had barely died down in New Orleans when the liberal blogosphere erupted in anguish over the slowness of the federal government’s response to the disaster. And in the following days, a reason was found for the government’s tardiness: George W. Bush hated black people and wanted them to die.

Not being the most imaginative of folk, our lefty friends woke up this morning and, whether a result of coordination through their infamous “JournoList” or just because all liberals basically think alike anyway, decided to repeat their success with the Katrina campaign by blaming Republicans for the lack of preparedness by government.

The message is clear: Conservative Republicans want to kill you:

When House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed investment in pandemic preparation, included roughly $900 million for that purpose in this year’s emergency stimulus bill, he was ridiculed by conservative operatives and congressional Republicans.

[snip]

But former White House political czar Karl Rove and key congressional Republicans — led by Maine Senator Susan Collins — aggressively attacked the notion that there was a connection between pandemic preparation and economic recovery.

Of course, the fact that all House Republicans and all but three senators voted against the stimulus bill, where Obey’s proposal was inserted, means that Republicans want all of you to die a horrible death, drowning in your own fluids as you burn up with fever and your loved ones look on in horror and dismay.

Well, they don’t come right out and say it, of course. But that is clearly the message being advanced on major liberal websites and blogs.

The only problem with this meme is that it’s not exactly true, as Don Surber points out:

If we follow this silly Democratic talking point, then for every dollar spent on fighting swine flu will cost taxpayers $874.44 using Nichols example.

What is more, Republicans were right. An emergency appropriation could be made after the fact — as we do every disaster be it hurricanes, tornadoes or blizzards. Is he saying by not appropriating money for these certain disasters that Democrats favor hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards?

Nichols is just mouthing the White House words.

And another problem that may prove a bit more difficult for our lefty friends to explain away is that no one — no House members or senators from either party — got to vote on Mr. Obey’s preparedness measures. Did those bloodthirsty Republicans who want to see all of you dead defeat the forces of sweetness and light by cruelly pulling some arcane parliamentary maneuver to force the codicil out of the bill?

Not exactly. It appears that Mr. Obey’s preparedness spending was removed by Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York. And even Schumer believed it didn’t belong in the stim bill:

“All those little porky things that the House put in, the money for the [National] Mall or the sexually transmitted diseases or the flu pandemic, they’re all out,” Schumer said.

And as Michelle Malkin points out:

There is actually one sane person at the Daily Kos. Probably won’t be there for long, but give this person credit for pointing out that the left-wing attacks on Republicans over flu pandemic funding are utterly ridiculous. The money they are shrieking about was included in a different bill passed by the Senate – and in fact, was funding requested by George W. Bush.

That funding was part of a $7 billion request from back in 2005, when government was gearing up for bio-terror and bird flu preparedness. Most Republicans supported that request and helped pass the omnibus budget bill in March of this year, which gave Mr. Obey his $900 million in pandemic preparedness.

So I’m sure you’re relieved to know that the GOP really doesn’t want to kill you — at least not with swine flu. But when the next crisis comes along, you can be sure that liberals will once again politicize it as fast as they can in order to prove that their political opponents belong either in a loony bin or on death row.

Rick Moran is PJM Chicago editor; his own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

….Be darn careful of those who say: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste”.  Watch what unfolds if the swine flu of 2009 isn’t quickly contained…. 

By Paul Truesdell, RedCounty.com, 04/26/09

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” This statement actually came from the lips of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November of 2008. Keep this in mind as you continue reading.   

The pandemic threat of the swine flu that has broken out in Mexico, with cases that have appeared in the United States is serious and requires prompt reaction by individuals, businesses, charities, and the government. The pandemic of 1918 and the 1976 swine flu outbreak are distant memories for most; however, history will repeat itself at some unknown time in the near or distant future. 

Events such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, set in motion a wide range of knee jerk legislative initiatives and Executive Orders that gutted some of the most basic civil liberties our forefathers fought for. Using the words of the White House, a potential pandemic presents another opportunity to get things done that you couldn’t do before.  

And what will that opportunity be?

Nationalization of health care and another step toward an ever growing and all powerful big brother government that has the ability to read your mail, listen to you phone calls, track you by GPS, control the access to your money in the bank, pensions, and insurance policies, tell your employer who to hire, what to pay, where you should work, and now, how, when, and where to treat you for injury and illness. 

The threat of a swine flu pandemic is more than a health threat; it presents another opportunity for those who threaten the fundamental principles of our constitution. Our civil liberties of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are under attack as they were when internment camps were permitted in World War II.

As a nation, we would benefit from a history lesson about the Espionage Act of 1917. During World War I, President Wilson (D), the founder of the League of Nations, restricted publication of foreign language newspapers, censored communications, widely jailed anti-war protesters, deported legal alien residents, and arrested presidential candidate Eugene Debs. We would also benefit from recalling the history of President Franklin Roosevelt (D), who presided over the internment of countless Japanese Americans during World War II. Those who suffer from President Bush (R) derangement over the Iraq War and the loss of civil liberties through the Patriot Act, often and conveniently forget what others have done; which was as bad, if not worse, for personal freedom and civil liberty. Quite simply, take the political party affiliation of a president out of the equation, and the statement by the Chief of Staff of the current Administration (“Never let a serious crisis go to waste.”) is a path that has been taken many times in the past.

By the way, for those who are unfamiliar with the League of Nations, President Wilson was the force behind this inter-governmental organization that came about as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 at the conclusion of World War I. The League of Nations was the forerunner of the United Nations, and sought to uphold and expand the rights of man, begin widespread disarmament, prevent war through collective security, settle disputes between countries through negotiation, diplomacy, world courts, and improve the overall global quality of life. You have to admit, it sure sounds familiar to the statement of the recent past and current Administrations.

Shortly after World War I, fascism took root in countries like Germany, Italy, and Spain, banks and manufacturing concerns were nationalized, and the Axis Powers sought a new world order and global domination.  Peace through disarmament didn’t work very well as little Adolph and his brown shirted friends began goose stepping the world to World War II. 

And the last really big pandemic occurred in 1918.

Be darn careful of those who say: “Never let a serious crisis go to waste”.  Watch what unfolds if the swine flu of 2009 isn’t quickly contained. 

Think about it, and don’t react too late.

http://www.redcounty.com/swine-opportunity

Obama Among the Dictators

Wall Street Journal, 4/22/2009 – Change in autocratic regimes doesn’t come from talking to the dictators. Wonder Land columnist Daniel Henninger explains. (April 23)

 Obama Shows His Subservience to Saudi King

Catholic World News Brief (EWTN), April 27, 2009

In an April 21 question-and-answer session at the 2009 Louisiana Priests Convention, Cardinal Francis George said President Barack Obama is on the “wrong side of history” on life issues. “I think on the life issue he’s on the wrong side of history,” Cardinal George said. “I think he has his political debts to pay, and so he’s paying them.”

Commenting on his March 18 meeting with the president, he said the two discussed the president’s decision to revoke the Mexico City Policy. “He said we weren’t exporting abortion,” Cardinal George recounted. “I said, ‘Yes we are.’ He would say, ‘I know I have to do certain things here … But be patient and you’ll see the pattern will change.’ I said, ‘Mr. President, you’ve given us nothing but the wrong signals on this issue.’ So, we’ll see, but I’m not as hopeful now as I was when he was first elected.”

Cardinal George continued, “John Paul II says you cannot simply live comfortably with an immoral legal system, any more than you could live comfortably with slavery, and therefore you have to work to change the law. It’s a society-dividing issue, and on this issue, we’re with Abraham Lincoln and he’s with Stephen Douglas, and he doesn’t like to hear that, but that’s where he is.”

Cardinal George added, “For 80 years we were a slave republic, and it took a terrible war to end that. And now for 40 years we’re in an abortion regime, and I’m not sure how that’s going to end.”

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=95195

By Kathleen Gilbert, April 27, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com

NOTRE DAME, Indiana – Mary Ann Glendon, the former United States ambassador to the Vatican who was set to receive the University of Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal at the school’s commencement on May 17, has written to University president Fr. John Jenkins saying that she will not attend the ceremony or accept the award after all. 

Glendon says her refusal stems from the University’s persistence in choosing to honor Obama with an honorary degree, despite U.S. Bishops Conference policy that forbids honoring pro-abortion politicians. 

President Obama is scheduled to give the keynote commencement address and receive an honorary law degree at the graduation ceremony.

When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

- “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

- “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision-in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops-to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Revealed: Obama Commencement Talking Points for University of Notre Dame Trustees
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040710.html

Bishops Zubik, Loverde, LeVoir Make 46 Bishops Against ND Scandal
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042302.html

THIS ARTICLE:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042702.html

John 3: 7b-15
Jesus said to Nicodemus: “‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus answered and said to him, “How can this happen?” Jesus answered and said to him, “You are the teacher of Israel and you do not understand this? Amen, amen, I say to you, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”

Introductory Prayer: Lord, you know my needs better than I do. I turn to your Spirit to teach me what to ask for in this prayer. I want to fulfill your holy will over my life. I love you, Lord, and I place all my hope in you.

Petition: Lord, increase my faith!

1. You Are the Teacher of Israel. Nicodemus was one of the leading teachers, yet here he tries to make a quiet request for information from Jesus. As a religious teacher he was well versed in the rules and regulations, but there was still a gap in his knowledge. He didn’t know about the Holy Spirit and the new existence that we receive by being born of “water and the spirit.” In a way, he can’t be blamed, since Jesus had not yet revealed it, but it just goes to show us how fundamental spiritual knowledge is in order to be a credible spiritual leader. As committed Catholics, we need to lead others to deeper faith. But will we do so to the degree that we know the faith and are living it in our hearts?

2. Being Born of the Spirit. Are we practical materialists? At times we become so enmeshed in the reality of daily life that we don’t give the slightest thought to the spiritual world, which is infinitely greater than the material one that consumes all our attention. Through our baptism, we are marked out for heavenly things. We bear on our soul the indelible mark that proclaims to the universe that we are children of God. Every time we take a spiritual breath, and glance heavenwards, we renew that birth in the Spirit through which the Lord claimed us as his own. Let’s never spend more than a minute as practical materialists!

3. Giving Testimony. Jesus speaks here about giving testimony. He wants us to be his witnesses as well. He wants us to continue to proclaim to the world the reality of the “heavenly things” that he revealed. Possibly the greatest testimony we can give is the happiness and charity of our lives. Joyful, charitable Catholics carry in their very demeanor the sign that their faith is authentic. Before you get angry, upset, or critical, ask yourself, “Is this the testimony of a life filled with the Holy Spirit?”

Conversation with Christ: Lord, thank you for the gift of the Holy Spirit in my life. At times, I don’t always live in accord with the great blessing you have given me, but I know that your patience and mercy always give me another chance. Help me to love others and give them a glimpse of heaven through my charity.

Resolution: In my conversation today, I will try to say something that will plant a spiritual seed in others.

http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=363&ca=975&te=735&id=20302

Born in Montfort, Brittany, on January 31, 1673; died at Saint-Laurent-sur-Sevre, France, on April 28, 1716; canonized by Pope Pius XII in 1947.  Apostle of devotion to Mary, gifted preacher and founder of two religious congregations.

Possessed of a strong devotion to the Blessed Sacrament as a child and intimately devoted to the Blessed Virgin, especially through the Rosary, he took the name Marie at his confirmation.

He manifested a love for the poor since he was at school and joined a society of young men who ministered to the poor and the sick on school holidays
When he was 19, he walked 130 miles to Paris to study theology, gave all he had to the poor that he met along the way and made a vow to live only on alms. After his ordination at 27, he served as a hospital chaplain until the management of the hospital resented his reorganization of the staff and sent him away.

He discovered his great gift for preaching at the age of 32, and he committed himself to it vigorously for the rest of his life. He met with such great success that he often drew crowds of thousands to hear his sermons in which he encouraged frequent communion and devotion to Mary.

But he also met with opposition, namely in the form of the Jansenists, a heretical movement within the Church that believed in absolute Predestination, in which only a chosen few are saved, and the rest damned. Much of France was influenced by Jansenism, including many bishops, who banished St. Loius-Marie from preaching in their dioceses. He was even poisoned by Jansenists in La Rochelle, but survived, though he had to suffer ill health ever since.

While he recuperated from the effects of the poisoning, he wrote the masterpiece of Marian piety, True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, which he correctly prophesied would be hidden by the devil for a time; it was only discovered 200 years after his death.

It is from the first line of St. Louis-Marie´s prayer of entrustment to Mary (“Totus Tuus ego sum”: I am all yours) that Pope John Paul II has taken his episcopal motto: “Totus Tuus.”

One year before his death St. Louis-Marie founded two congregations: the Daughters of Divine Wisdom – which tended to the sick in hospitals and the education of poor girls, and the Company of Mary, missionaries devoted to preaching and to spreading devotion to Mary.

….In addition, at least 42 Catholic bishops in the United States are on record as publicly opposing Obama speaking at Notre Dame and receiving an honorary degree….

Pro-Life Harvard Prof Refuses Award from Notre Dame Because it is Honoring Obama

By Michael W. Chapman, Managing Editor, CNSNews, April 27, 2009


Mary Ann Glendon, Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican (2007-09). (Photo courtesy of Harvard Law School Web site.)

….“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now (Obama’s) cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before. We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.”….

Jim Meyers, NewsMax, April 26, 2009 

 Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security.

The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.

Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve.

“None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.

See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama’s National Security Debacle – Click Here Now

 “This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax.

“There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.

“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.

“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration.

“They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.

“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country.

“Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.

“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.”

Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques.

“I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said.

“Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country.

“This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way.

“There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.

“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.

“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before.

“We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.”

Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.

“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed.

“People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”

Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.

“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”

Thompson’s radio show is heard on weekdays from noon to 2 p.m.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/fred_thompson_obama_cia/2009/04/26/207563.html?promo_code=2A89-1

 Huffington Riposte, April 24, 2009

AIR FORCE ONE HAS BECOME THE NEW WHITE HOUSE WITH THE OBAMA SPENDING MORE TIME IN THE AIR IN IT THAN ON THE GROUND IN WASHINGTON

ABOVE IS A PHOTO OF AIR FORCE ONE -
THE NEW WHITE HOUSE

 

Have you noticed? The main stream media
have stopped showing the nation The Obama boarding
Air Force One and doing business on board while
flying to every city and town in America and many
countries around the world.

The main stream media will never mention it,
but the reality is fast developing that
The Obama is spending more time in the air
than he is on the ground.

Air Force One has become the new White House.

Incredibly, The Obama has had ONLY ONE
meeting of his cabinet in the first 100 days
of his administration and that meeting just
took place last week.

One can infer from these facts that for all practical
purposes the United States is being
governed by the Triumvirate of Obama,
Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod,
with their decisions being relayed
from the air to the cabinet members
on the ground.

http://thehuffingtonriposte.blogspot.com/2009/04/air-force-one-has-become-new-white.html

 

….IMMINENT THREAT!  Talk Show Reps Hold Pre-Emptive Meeting to Stop Efforts by Community Activists and Government From Garnering Control Over Freedom of Speech . . . Top hosts hold unprecedented summit to stop efforts at government control . . . By demanding radio stations answer to local community watchdog boards to ensure programming is “balanced,” “fair,” “diverse,” “tolerant” and “serving the public interest locally,” O’Leary says the rules and legislation being planned will once again make talk radio accountable to politicians, political activists and bureaucrats at the FCC. ….

 
 WorldNetDaily, April 26, 2009 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Putting aside their own competitive interests, representatives of more than two dozen of the nation’s top talk shows held an unprecedented private meeting over the weekend to brainstorm strategies against what they agreed are government plans by to squelch critical political speech on radio.

Organized by Brad O’Leary, author of the new book, “Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech,” and Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, the group chose one attendee to be spokesman and chairman of the coalition – syndicated host Roger Hedgecock of San Diego.

A daylong discussion today focused on what was described as the “imminent threat” of so-called “localism” requirements that will subject radio programming to the review by panels of community activists who will evaluate station content. These panels will be empowered to make recommendations for programming changes and challenge at the Federal Communications Commission the licenses renewals of stations that don’t heed their advice.

Last month, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., submitted an amendment to the D.C. Voting Bill which would require the FCC to “encourage and promote diversity in … media ownership” and reaffirm FCC authority to mandate the presentation “of opposing points of view on issues of public importance.”

Also of concern to the hosts and producers gathered in the nation’s capital was a decision last week by Clear Channel, the nation’s largest owner of radio stations, to mandate the creation of local advisory boards by June at all of its properties. The move was seen as pre-emptive as the industry anticipates an FCC stacked with Barack Obama appointees will soon require stations to answer to panels of community activists.

In February, the FCC floated several proposals to require stations to better serve local communities, including establishing community advisory boards to consult stations on programming.

“We are materially increasing our commitment to community programming, increasing our accountability and broadening our public-service contributions in every local market we serve,” said John Hogan, president and chief executive officer of Clear Channel. “We believe when radio focuses on servicing local communities, it is radio at its finest.”

Going forward, Clear Channel stations will be required to air a total of 12 minutes of public service announcements daily and 84 minutes per week. Community leaders will be invited to submit information for future PSAs. In addition, the company will choose one national cause to be highlighted company-wide each quarter for coordinated campaigns.

The FCC is currently composed of two Democrat and two Republican commissioners. Obama has nominated a new chairman, Julius Genachowski, which would give Democrats a 3-2 majority once he is confirmed.

As WND previously reported, Genachowski advocates creating new media ownership rules that promote a diversity of voices on the airwaves. In fact, Genachowski is credited with helping craft the Obama technology agenda, which states: “Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.”

“Such language is bureaucratese for government control,” says O’Leary. “So-called ‘public interest’ requirements would put broadcasters at the mercy of local review boards. Such boards would, of course, be politically charged entities with the power to bar any broadcast content that is not deemed to be in the ‘public interest’ of the local community.”

O’Leary says the plan amounts to the development of party-approved “commissar committees” to censor the kind of lively and free-wheeling debate America has known since the scrapping of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” by President Reagan’s Federal Communications Commission in 1987.

By demanding radio stations answer to local community watchdog boards to ensure programming is “balanced,” “fair,” “diverse,” “tolerant” and “serving the public interest locally,” O’Leary says the rules and legislation being planned will once again make talk radio accountable to politicians, political activists and bureaucrats at the FCC.

Hedgecock, also a WND columnist, called for the creation of a national “tea party-style” grass-roots movement to subvert plans he and the other participants agreed were direct, frontal assaults on First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

A website was created to serve as a clearinghouse of information on the threat to talk radio under the name American Radio Free Speech.

In addition, Farah launched a petition campaign months ago to block federal government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Representatives of the FCC and the Obama administration were unavailable for comment over the weekend.

….Today’s President reminds me of my former plumber.  He tells us we are going to have to pay up because nobody, other than himself, is competent. Our President has a unique aptitude for trashing.  He trashes Wall Street, AIG, the credit card companies, the automobile industry, CEO’s, the banks, the lenders, and, the economy.  Unlike any other sitting President, he trashes his predecessor, and, when he is abroad, he loves to trash his country….

By Harold Witkov, American Thinker, April 27, 2009

….In 2007, Planned Parenthood increased its number of adoption referrals by 2,502 for a total of 4,912 referrals. But it conducted 15,560 more abortions during the same period, totaling 305,310 abortions in all. For every adoption referral, therefore, Planned Parenthood conducted 62 abortions. Whoopty doo dang.….

By David N. Bass, American Spectator, 4.27.09

Left-wing activists are indignant at obscene oil company profits, hefty CEO bonuses, and sweet golden parachutes — but what about expansion of the No. 1 violator of human rights in the United States?

No, it’s not Dick Cheney and the CIA. It’s Planned Parenthood. The abortion giant took home $85 million in “excess of revenue over expenses” (a nifty way of saying profits) and had an operating budget of over $1 billion for the 2007-2008 fiscal year, according to its latest annual report. Included in that budget was $350 million in “government grants and contracts” (an equally nifty way of saying your tax dollars). An increase in the number of abortions performed helped fuel the profits.

The new numbers come on the heels of a spat of stories suggesting that recessionary times are contributing to a spike in abortions. Reuters gives anecdotal evidence that, because of the economy, more women are getting abortions and more men vasectomies. An Associated Press story reports that Planned Parenthood of Illinois clinics conducted “an all-time high number of abortions in January.”

Ironically, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a report in March showing that the United States birthrate in 2007 reached its highest level ever, surpassing the peak of the baby boom in 1957. But those numbers were before the stock market tanked, unemployment numbers spiked, and a president compared the crisis to the Great Depression — leading many families to believe that starting a family, or adding another child, would break the bank.

That leads to a critical truth. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the abortion on demand ethic, it’s obvious that hard economic times translate into more customers for abortion and family planning providers. Planned Parenthood admits as much in its annual reporting, saying that when “men and women face increasing economic uncertainty and decreasing access to affordable health care, Planned Parenthood matters even more.”

Now, with a White House that has promised to funnel unprecedented amounts of taxpayer dollars into the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood has even more reason to rejoice. Despite its political and economic gains, however, the group is still attempting to walk the public relations tightrope by making ample use of lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Adoption is one example. Planned Parenthood’s report boasts that, in 2007, “the number of adoption referrals at Planned Parenthood health centers increased by more than 100 percent. The number of abortions provided rose by a little more than five percent.”

The percentages appear significant until one examines the hard numbers. In 2007, Planned Parenthood increased its number of adoption referrals by 2,502 for a total of 4,912 referrals. But it conducted 15,560 more abortions during the same period, totaling 305,310 abortions in all. For every adoption referral, therefore, Planned Parenthood conducted 62 abortions. Whoopty doo dang.

The reason for the wide disparity is not hard to guess. The financial incentive lies with abortion, not adoption. It’s a PR boon to throw in the referrals, since it helps the group keep its pro-choice misnomer, but abortion and contraception services bring home the real bacon.

Uncle Sam helps, too. The federal government has morphed into Planned Parenthood’s sugar daddy, and the co-dependency is only going to get worse in the age of Obama. Fully one-third of the organization’s revenue last year came from the government, compared with less than one-fourth from private contributions. If Planned Parenthood can’t get your money voluntarily, its advocates in Congress will coercively.

That’s why limited government advocates have a stake in the pro-life cause. On April 15, over one million Americans flocked to state capitals, public parks, and town halls to protest runaway government spending — and rightly so. Although most of the movement’s furor was directed at bailouts and stimulus packages, government’s love tryst with the abortion lobby should be exhibit A in the tea partiers’ future arsenal.

The first target should be Obama’s executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy, which had ensured that American taxpayer funds would never be used for overseas abortions. The move didn’t get much ink because of the media’s preoccupation with the economic crisis, but it stands as an example of both Obama’s abortion radicalism and intention, even in a troubled economy, to throw public money at groups that helped him get elected.

Maybe Obama views the abortion industry similarly to AGI — too big to fail.

John 6: 22-29

After Jesus had fed the five thousand men, his disciples saw him walking on the sea. The next day, the crowd that remained across the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not gone along with his disciples in the boat, but only his disciples had left. Other boats came from Tiberias near the place where they had eaten the bread when the Lord gave thanks. When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. And when they found him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.” So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”

Introductory Prayer: Lord, I believe that you are present here and now as I turn to you in prayer. I trust and have confidence in your desire to give me every grace I need to receive today. Thank you for your love, thank you for your immense generosity toward me. I give you my life and my love in return.

Petition:Lord, increase my faith.

1. Full of Food or Full of Grace? Some television evangelists preach a “Gospel of Prosperity,” promising financial and health benefits or general well-being for those who follow Christ in their church. “Good things will come your way!” they say. While these earthly things are good, Christ shows us that his greatest gifts are not the “loaves that fill,” but the grace and eternal life that can be ours through faith. Faith is both our offering to God and his gift to us. It opens our heart to receive the gift that never perishes: eternal life.

2. Row, Row, Row Your Boat Christ didn’t stay with the crowds, but rather he crossed over to Capernaum. The crowds, still full with the bread of the miracle of the loaves, had to figure out where Christ went, get in their boats, and find him. When Christ seems to have moved on us, we need to get into our boat and row—to look for him, to seek him in prayer, to be renewed in his sacraments. He wants us to follow him pro-actively, not passively sitting on the shore with our boat in dry-dock. We need to shove off into the waters of prayer and row.

3. God’s Work Is Our Work, and Vice-versa. “This is the work of God….” Our belief (faith) in the one the Father sent is the result of both God’s work in our lives and our work to use and make that gift of faith grow. Above all, faith is God’s gift to us. But it is a gift that grows only when we exercise it, use it, and ask for more. Just as a runner must run more to be a better runner, to believe more we need to believe more. Only then is our heart open to receive the gift of greater faith.

Conversation with Christ: Lord, I don’t want to settle for seeking only the “loaves that fill,” but the joy and salvation that comes from believing in you. “I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24). Show me what I must do to follow you. Make your path clear to me, and give me the strength to follow it.

Resolution:When faced with any difficulty, obstacle, or frustration today, I will exercise my faith in God and seek to do his will.

http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=363&ca=975&te=735&id=20302

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, APRIL 27, 2009

 St. Zita is the patron saint of domestic workers. She was born into a poor, Christian family. At the age of 12, she became a housekeeper to a rich weaver in Lucca, Italy.

Despite her great workload, she attended mass and prayed everyday. She believed her work would lead to personal holiness. She would say: “A servant is not holy if she is not busy.”

She was very generous with gifts of food for the poor, and she would make time in her work schedule to visit with the sick and with prisoners.

Zita also experienced heavenly visions. She died in 1278, at the age of 60, having worked as a housekeeper for the same family all those years. The local people recognized her holiness and considered her a saint at her death.

 Luke 24:35-48
The disciples of Jesus recounted what had taken place along the way,
 and how they had come to recognize him in the breaking of bread. While they were still speaking about this, he stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost. Then he said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.” And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of baked fish; he took it and ate it in front of them. He said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and in the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures. And he said to them, “Thus it is written that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.”

Introductory Prayer: Lord, I believe that you are present here and now as I turn to you in prayer. I trust and have confidence in your desire to give me every grace I need to receive today. Thank you for your love, thank you for your immense generosity toward me. I give you my life and my love in return.

Petition:Lord, increase my faith in your presence in the Eucharist and in my life.

1. Jesus Is Made Known in the Breaking of the Bread. This passage follows Christ’s encounter with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. They returned to Jerusalem and reported to the other disciples what they had seen in the Breaking of the Bread – the name the early Church gave to the Eucharist celebration. Luke was not simply recording an apparition of the Risen Lord, he was also teaching that this same Lord is present in the Eucharist. Jesus loves us, as he revealed so clearly on Calvary. He wants to forgive us our sins and give us eternal life. Not satisfied with the gift of himself on Calvary, he desires to continue giving himself to us and to remain with us always. The Eucharist is a sign of his tremendous love. It is the source and summit of our spiritual life. It is a mystery that we need to meditate upon daily and to experience as frequently as possible in our lives.

2. Peace I Give You. Jesus promised his disciples peace: “Peace I give you” (John 14:27). He would give them his peace – a peace not of this world. If we are convinced of his love, what have we to fear? If we are convinced that he is with us, why be anxious about anything? So he asks his disciples, “Why are you troubled?” They were witnesses to his love on the cross and the glory of his resurrection. They were witnesses to his power and his goodness. If God is for us, who can be against us?
Are we troubled? What weighs on our heart and mind? What robs us of our sleep and peace? We need to give it to Jesus. We need to remind ourselves of his love and presence and his gift of peace. As often as worries assail us, we need to go to Jesus and meditate on these things.

3. You Are Witnesses. Jesus still needs witnesses today. How many people don’t know him? How many people don’t know of his love and are still burdened by sin? We who have received the gift of faith have an obligation to share it with others. The world needs witnesses. The world needs to see lives transformed by grace, coherent Catholics who live the faith they profess. We also need to witness to the transforming power of Christ in the Eucharist. Do I bring my family and friends closer to Our Lord in the Eucharist?

Conversation with Christ: Lord, I place my worries in your hands. Help me to keep trusting in your providence. Be with me today and help me to live what I believe. I know you are with me, but I have a hard time sharing my faith with others. Give me the courage I need to speak of you and your love. I know that they need you; give me the prudence to know what to do and what to say.

Resolution: Today I will transmit love for Christ in the Eucharist to someone who is close to me.

http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=363&ca=975&te=735&id=20302

By Kathleen Gilbert, April 24, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A divided House Judiciary Committee yesterday voted to send a federal “hate crimes” bill to the House, after free speech advocates failed to secure protection for pastors who might preach biblically-based injunctions against homosexual activity.

In a motion almost completely ignored by the mainstream media, the Judiciary Committee voted 15-12 to allow the hotly contested H.R. 1913, known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009, to go forward.

The measure would grant the federal government a new authority to prosecute any violent crime anywhere in the country that is perceived to be “motivated by prejudice” against a number of protected characteristics, including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Christian leaders are particularly concerned that attempts to secure the right to speak against the homosexual lifestyle and its normalization have failed.  Among many rejected proposals for the bill was one offered by Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, which would have included a clause ensuring ministers could not be prosecuted for abetting a “hate crime” because they preached the Christian perspective on homosexuality. 

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the Congressman who introduced the bill, claimed the bill posed no danger to Christian free speech, saying that it “only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way.”  Section 10 of H.R. 1913 states: “Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Yet free speech advocates have pointed out that under current U.S. law, any action that “abets, counsels, commands, [or] induces” a perceived “hate crime” shares in the guilt of that crime, and is therefore punishable. 

The danger posed by the “hate crime” legislation to Christian ministers was confirmed when Congress considered practically identical legislation in 2007.  Then, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., admitted during a hearing on the measure that it could be used to prosecute pastors for preaching the biblical perspective on homosexuality, given the perception that it may have “induced” a later hate crime.

“Just passing the legislation is going to result in pastors saying, ‘I’m not going to address this issue,’” the American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow told the Christian Broadcasting Network.

In a Christian Post column Tuesday, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins issued a point-by-point explanation of the unprecedented dangers presented by the “hate crimes” bill. 

Perkins points out that H.R. 1913 violates the 14th amendment, which provides equal protection under the law, “by protecting some victims more than others.”

“Do we somehow care less about a victim who is violently assaulted because of a robbery or personal dispute than we do about a victim who is assaulted because they belong in a federally protected category?” Perkins asked.

Also, says Perkins, the bill essentially “punishes thoughts and not just actions.” 

“Advocates of the bill deny this because it only authorizes prosecution of someone who ‘willfully causes bodily injury’ or ‘attempts to cause bodily injury,’” he said.  “But such acts are already crimes under state law. What converts the acts targeted by this bill into a federal offense are the thoughts or opinions of the perpetrator alone.

“Since every violent crime manifests some sort of ‘hate,’ it makes more sense to think of this as a ‘thought crimes’ law.”  (To read Perkins’ full column: http://www.christianpost.com/Opinion/Opinions/2009/04/why-co…)

Matt Barber, a lawyer with the Liberty Counsel, commented: “As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling ‘hate speech’ laws.

“It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle,” said Barber.

According to House majority leader Steny Hoyer, the measure is due for consideration by the full House next week.

U.S. House of Representatives switchboard:
202-224-3121
To look up local U.S. Representatives:
http://www.congress.org

Related links:
FRC President Tony Perkins’ Christian Post column, “Why Congress Should Reject Federal Hate Crimes Bill”: http://www.christianpost.com/Opinion/Opinions/2009/04/why-co…

FRC petition against “hate crimes” legislation:
http://www.fighthatecrimes.com/

See previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Pro-Family Group Urges Congress to Oppose Federal “Hate Crimes” Bill Set for Committee Hearing Tomorrow
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042114.html

Fed. Judiciary Committee to Examine Homosexualist “Hate Crimes” Bill Monday
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041714.html

ARTICLE:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042407.html

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY,  APRIL 25, 2009 

 St. Mark, the Evangelist, is the author of the second Gospel and the patron saint of notaries. He wrote the Gospel in Greek for the Gentile converts to Christianity. St. Mark was in Rome with St. Peter and St. Paul. Tradition says the Romans asked St. Mark to record the teachings of St. Peter about Jesus.

St. Mark is also said to have travelled with St. Paul and St. Barnabas, who was Mark’s cousin, on their missionary journey through Cyprus. Tradition says St. Mark founded the Church in Alexandria.

St. Mark is sometimes called John Mark in the New Testament. Both he and his mother, Mary, were highly esteemed in the early Church, and his mother’s house in Jerusalem served as a meeting place for Christians.elist, is the author of the second Gospel and the patron saint of notaries. He wrote the Gospel in Greek for the Gentile converts to Christianity. St. Mark was in Rome with St. Peter and St. Paul. Tradition says the Romans asked St. Mark to record the teachings of St. Peter about Jesus.

St. Mark is also said to have travelled with St. Paul and St. Barnabas, who was Mark’s cousin, on their missionary journey through Cyprus. Tradition says St. Mark founded the Church in Alexandria.

St. Mark is sometimes called John Mark in the New Testament. Both he and his mother, Mary, were highly esteemed in the early Church, and his mother’s house in Jerusalem served as a meeting place for Christians.

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 4/24/2009

Parents should be furious that a federal agency is putting their minor daughters at great health risk. That’s one reaction to a recent ruling on the “morning-after” pill.

The “morning-after” pill is to be sold, without prescription, to minors as young as 17. The Food and Drug Administration issued the order after one New York federal judge ruled along the same line. Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, is livid.

“This decision is driven by politics, not what is good for patients or minors,” exclaims Wright. “Parents should be furious at the FDA’s complete disregard of parental rights and the safety of minors.”

The judge’s decision was based on old information, she notes — but now much more is known about the controversial regimen.

“Even well-known advocates [for Plan B] — researchers in favor of the morning-after pill — have admitted that it is very ineffective,” Wright points out. “It doesn’t reduce pregnancies, and making the drug easy to get without a prescription neither reduces pregnancies or abortions.”

Moreover, there is no research on what side-effects the drug might have on a woman’s health. As Wright points out, it is nothing more than a high dose of birth-control pills — and testing has not been conducted to determine the effects of using it multiple times.

She laments reports from pregnancy counselors that some women are relying on Plan B as a regular form of birth control because it is easy to obtain.

April 24, 2009 – by John Hawkins

How can we expect Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, or Russia to act responsibly if they believe they have nothing to fear from us?

Editorial Cartoon by Scott Stantis

http://townhall.com/cartoons/cartoonist/ScottStantis/2009/04/1

Political Cartoon by Glenn McCoy

Political and Editorial Cartoons for 4/24/2009

….It’s easy to understand why government officials downplay the problem: Because it’s the result of China’s “one-child” policy. Rural families, for both cultural and economic reasons, place a premium on male children. Since the law limits families to one child, if they give birth to a girl they have no heir. And then they’ll often resort to theft. It’s an inexcusable but foreseeable result of China’s war against life…..

By Charles Colson,Catholic Exchange, April 24th, 2009

There is a group of extraordinary thieves in southern China that has ordinary people rattled. They know when their would-be victims are most vulnerable, and they take advantage of this vulnerability. In the proverbial blink of an eye, they strike-and abscond with a family’s greatest treasure, leaving it without a future.

I mean that literally. That’s because what is being stolen aren’t people’s possessions or even their life’s savings: It’s their sons. Yet again, our modern contempt for life claims yet more victims.

A recent New York Times article tells about the theft of young boys in China’s Pearl River Delta. Families desperate for male heirs pay thousands of dollars for young boys.

The children are often stolen at dusk when their parents, tired from work, are distracted. Thieves lure them by offering toys and pieces of fruit. The more brazen ones simply snatch them and throw them into still-moving cars.

Government officials downplay the problem, claiming that there “are fewer than 2,500 [total] cases of human trafficking each year” in China. Advocates for victims of child theft insist that there may be several hundred thousand stolen boys.

It’s easy to understand why government officials downplay the problem: Because it’s the result of China’s “one-child” policy. Rural families, for both cultural and economic reasons, place a premium on male children. Since the law limits families to one child, if they give birth to a girl they have no heir. And then they’ll often resort to theft. It’s an inexcusable but foreseeable result of China’s war against life.

The scope of the problem is clearly seen in the numbers. A study released around the same time as the Times‘ story, published in the British Medical Journal, found that China has 32 million more males than females under twenty. In 2005, there were 120 boys born for every 100 girls.

This is what China’s “one-child policy” has caused. The preference for male children has led to the aborting of 16 million females.

The report’s authors warned that this imbalance could lead to an increase in crime by “young men unable to find female partners.”

As we’ve reported on BreakPoint, this is already happening: Chinese officials are increasingly alarmed at brutal crimes committed by unattached young men that are “without specific motives, often without forethought.”

Not enough males in one part of the country, too many “hopeless, volatile” males in other parts: This is the price China is paying for declaring war on human life. We cannot defy the moral order God has written into his creation without, as the scriptures put it, reaping the whirlwind.

I say “we” because even China’s tragic example isn’t enough to cause the West to examine its own contempt for life. Sixteen million dead girls isn’t enough to make us seriously question abortion on demand.

Likewise, we have no problem with anti-natalism, only with the “mean” way the Chinese implement it: not so much because it hurts ordinary Chinese people but because it raises questions we would rather not face. Questions like “What will our contempt for life cost us?”

This update courtesy of BreakPoint.

http://catholicexchange.com/2009/04/24/117902/

Frederick J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images
Families celebrate Children’s Day at a park in Beijing. Children’s Day, an annual holiday since 1949, is an important event for a country where most families have only one child.