Will the Real Racist Please Stand Up?
This grandma taught me a lesson in humility more salient than any class in school: I should leave my white guilt and condescension at the door. I surrendered my preconceived notions about minorities and instead let them teach me.
# 1 KILLER OF BLACK AMERICANS? ABORTION
Dr. Freda Bush spoke recently at an event in Washington, D.C. to recognize the work done by Pregnancy Resource Centers to help women who face unplanned pregnancy. She said that abortion kills more African Americans than many of the most deadly diseases blamed for killing blacks each year combined. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year.
Continue reading
And We Thought He Was a Hero….
 |
Deal W. Hudson, Inside Catholic, Oct. 29, 2009 |
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), after all his efforts to remove abortion coverage from the health care bill, admits he would vote for the bill even if abortion remained in it. Once he has a chance to “vote my conscience” trying to remove abortion funding by an amendment, he’ll still support the bill.
What happened to the conscience that led Rep. Stupak to offer the amendment in the first place?
Doesn’t that same conscience get in the way of voting for a health care bill with the very thing — abortion funding — he found morally objectionable in the first place?
Sounds to me like Speaker Pelosi got to him — who knows what she threatened. If not Pelosi, someone did something.
And we thought he was a hero…. http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_myblog&Itemid=127
Does the USCCB Continue to Confuse Catholics With Their Partnership With the “So We Might See” Coalition?
According to Osman, the USCCB “shares So We Might See’s general commitments to improving access to broadband among the under-served; to reducing violence in all media; and to reducing the excess of advertising in children’s programming.”
Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster).
DO YOU THINK LIBERALS IN CHARGE MEANS RATIONED HEALTH CARE? ASK K. SEBELIUS!
The provision giving the HHS secretary this power appears on pages 256 and 257 of the Finance Committee’s gargantuan health-care reform bill, which totals just over 1,500 pages.
“The Secretary of Health and Human Services,” says the bill, “shall, by regulations, provide for the development of standards for the definitions of terms used in health insurance coverage.”……..continued.. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56263
“We knew from the outset–everybody knew from the outset–we would not have enough to immunize the 150 million Americans who fit into those five priority groups,” Sebelius said during a Wednesday press conference at HHS headquarters in Washington, D.C………… continued.. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56269
BIZARRE! Why Didn’t Obama Give Families Private Time With Their Fallen Soldiers at Midnight Last Night?
By Ben Feller, Associated Press, CNSNews, October 29, 2009
President Barack Obama leaves the White House at around midnight Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2009, on his way to Dover Air Force Base, Del. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
On a clear fall night, Obama flew by Marine One helicopter to Dover Air Force Base to greet the flag-draped cases of 18 Americans killed in action this week.
After landing, the president, wearing a dark topcoat, got into a motorcade to a base chapel, where he met privately with families of the fallen Americans. He had arrived on the base at 12:34 a.m. Thursday and was expected to be back at the White House before dawn.
Obama was taking part in a solemn process, to unfold in four movements: the transfer of the fallen 15 soldiers and three Drug Enforcement Agency agents from the back of the C-17 to a transport vehicle to a base mortuary.
As part of the official party, Obama was to go on the plane, each time witnessing silently as a chaplain said a prayer for the fallen, the family, the country and the war effort.
Continue reading
STUPAK….NOT AS PRINCIPLED AS YOU THINK!
Stupak Town Hall Video: “I Would Ultimately Vote for Abortion-Expanding Health Bill”
Pro-life source on Capitol Hill has called Stupak’s statements in the video a “game-changer” and a “disaster.”
By Kathleen Gilbert, October 29, 2009, LifeSiteNews.com
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A video released by the Heritage Foundation blog appears to show Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, whose efforts against the health care bill’s abortion expansion had emerged as the pro-life community’s primary strategy in the House, admitting that he would ultimately vote for the health bill even with government-funded abortion if it otherwise met his standards.
“If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion, and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. OK, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district, could I vote for healthcare? Yes I still could,” Stupak is shown telling a town hall meeting in Cheboyan, Michigan in a video released today.
Rep. Stupak was not immediately available for comment on the video.
Stupak had told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone interview Monday that he was “fairly confident” that his plan to strike down the bill in a procedural vote (should House Speaker Pelosi not allow a floor vote on a pro-life amendment) would work. In light of the new video, however, it is not certain whether Stupak would consider ultimately voting in favor of the bill should this tactic fail.
A pro-life source on Capitol Hill has called Stupak’s statements in the video a “game-changer” and a “disaster.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09102811.html
Founder’s Quote Daily
“It is the duty of parents to maintain their children decently, and according to their circumstances; to protect them according to the dictates of prudence; and to educate them according to the suggestions of a judicious and zealous regard for their usefulness, their respectability and happiness.”
–James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
http://patriotpost.us/
GOSPEL & MEDITATION: God Desires to Draw Us to Himself
Father Paul Campbell, LC
Luke 13:31-35
At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” He said to them, “Go and tell that fox for me, ´Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work. Yet today, tomorrow, and the next day I must be on my way, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.´ Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you. And I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say, ´Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.´”
Introductory Prayer: Lord, I believe in you with a faith that never seeks to test you. I trust in you, hoping to learn to accept and follow your will, even when it does not make sense to the way that I see things. May my love for you and those around me be similar to the love you have shown to me.
Petition: Lord, I want to be convinced of your personal love for me.
1. Persevering in the Mission Jesus encounters opposition on his journey to Jerusalem. Pharisees come to warn him of Herod. Jesus is undeterred. He knows that the Father’s will is for him to go to Jerusalem and surrender his life on the cross. He doesn’t hide or seek to escape from his Father’s will. He knows that the cross lies ahead of him, but he also knows that death and the cross are not the end. Beyond death is the Resurrection: “On the third day I finish my work.” Christ’s example should give us confidence to move forward in the face of our own difficulties and struggles. We should turn to him because he knows how to persevere in the mission. And since he wants to be involved in our life, he will accompany us on our journey. He is always with us ready to give us the help of his grace and the strength of his hand.
2. A Heart Open to Others Jesus cried for Jerusalem. His heart was not closed to others. He was not absorbed in himself or his own problems. He freely offered his life for others. Others rejected him, but he never rejected them. He was not bitter towards those who would make him suffer. He loved, and he never ceases to love. As a hen gathers her young under her wings, so does God long to draw all men and women to himself. We need to let God draw us to himself.
3. Pray for Those Who Persecute You Jesus sets an example for us to follow. Our hearts should not be closed. We need to be open to the needs of those around us, even those who may attack the Church and persecute us. Jesus loved his enemies. He prayed for those who persecuted him. He blessed those who cursed him. He sought only their good, and he sacrificed himself for them. He shows us the way to live an authentically Christian life. To be faithful to him, we need to reach out in love even to those people who don’t think and act like us.
Conversation with Christ: Lord, help me to follow your inspirations always. Often there is good that I want to do, but I hesitate and draw back. Help me to keep giving even when I’m tired and worn out. Teach me that you are always with me and that I am never alone.
Resolution: I will be open to what a family member or colleague at work might need, and I will seek to offer my help.
http://www.regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?se=363&ca=975&te=735&id=20302
BLESSED MARIA RESTITUTA KAFKA
In 1919, she began working as a surgical nurse in Austria. When the Germans took over, she became a local opponent of the Nazi regime. Her conflict with them escalated after they ordered her to remove all the crucifixes that she had hung up in each room of a new hospital wing.
Sister Maria Restituta refused and she was arrested by the Gestapo in 1942. She was sentenced to death for “aiding and abetting the enemy in the betrayal of the fatherland and for plotting high treason.”
She spent the rest of her days in prison caring for other prisoners, who loved her. The Nazis offered her freedom if she would abandon the Franciscan sisters, but she refused.
She was beheaded March 30, 1943 in Vienna. Pope John Paul II beatified her on June 21, 1998.
Thanks to China and India, Copenhagen is Dead?
Patriot Post, Chronicle, October 28, 2009
“The Copenhagen Conference is about the world’s Lilliputians tying down its Gullivers.”
Editorial Exegesis
“With less than two months to go before the big Copenhagen Conference on global warming, two major nations have said ‘no thanks’ to the no-growth agenda. For that reason alone, so should we. Following a deal signed late Thursday between China and India, anything we might agree to do in Copenhagen is likely moot anyway. The two mega-nations — which together account for nearly a third of the world’s population — said they won’t go along with a new climate treaty being drafted in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. They’re basically saying no to anything that forces them to impose mandatory limits on their output of greenhouse gas emissions. Other developing nations, including Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, will likely reject any proposals as well. The deal was already in trouble. Three weeks ago, the Group of 77 developing nations met in Thailand to discuss what they wanted to do about global warming. Their answer: nothing. William Hawkins, writing in the American Thinker, quotes a piece in China’s Science Times journal that sums up how China — and other developing nations — feel: ‘Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiations table?’ the article’s author, Wang Jin, asks. ‘The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries.’ They see clearly what the rest of us seem to miss — that, for all its bad science, the Copenhagen Conference is about the world’s Lilliputians tying down its Gullivers, not about global warming at all. So, thanks to China and India, Copenhagen is dead — just as Kyoto was when it was signed in 1992, though no one knew it at the time. Without them, no global treaty on climate change will be workable.”
–Investor’s Business Daily
http://patriotpost.us/edition/2009/10/28/chronicle/
‘Disgusting’: Krauthammer Condemns Obama’s Blame Bush Routine
Krauthammer Says Barack Obama’s Attacks On Bush are “Disgusting” . . . “It’s beyond disgraceful.” . . . Says Obama ”child-like” attacks his predecessor
More Questions About USCCB and Hate Speech
Deal Hudson, Inside Catholic, Oct. 26, 2009
I have read both the response from Helen Osman at the USCCB and from Bishop Loverde and will respond more fully to them later.
Here are a few preliminary thoughts:
It’s clear that both responses ignore the core issue: Why is the Office of Communications at the USCCB listed as a “principal partner” in the “So We Might See” coalition if the intent of the USCCB was to support only the petition of the National Hispanic Media Coalition?
Or is the USCCB supporting the NHMC petition while the Department of Communications at the USCCB is supporting both the NHMC and the “So We Might See” coalition as a “principal partner”?
But, correct me if I am wrong, doesn’t the support of the Department of Communications at the USCCB imply the support of the USCCB itself, or are they two separate entities? (I’m joking, of course, but you get the point.)
There is no reason why anyone who sees the name of the Office of Communications of the USCCB on a letter, a petition, or a web site would not assume it carries with it the approval of the entire USCCB.
The odd thing about Ms. Osman’s reply is that the petition filed with the FCC by the NHMC has nothing to do with any of the issues about religious liberty raised by Ms. Osman. The NHMC is rightly concerned with the treatment of immigrants and immigration issues by talk radio.
The Department of Communications at the USCCB can simply remove its name from the “So We Might See” web site if they want to dissociate themselves from the attack on Rush Limbaugh and the implied attack on other talk radio personalities.
It’s also interesting that both Ms. Osman and Bishop Loverde, in much greater detail, indicate their concern about the potential impact of hate speech regulations on Catholic freedom of speech about Church teaching. If these are primary concerns for petitioning the FCC, why didn’t the USCCB take a position on the hate crimes legislation passed by the Congress just a few weeks ago?
Bishop Loverde specifically mentions the Church’s teaching on homosexuality that could come under fire as hate speech. That’s precisely the issue that was posed by the extension of hate crimes statutes to gays, lesbians, transgenders, and bisexuals.
Yet, the USCCB took no position on the hate crimes legislation at the same time, according to Bishop Loverde, the USCCB was petitioning the FCC on the identifical issue.
I think the issues raised by Bishop Loverde in the letter below from the Chancellor of the Arlington Diocese to Dominik Hoffman are exactly what bishops should be asking about the impact of hate speech and hate crimes legislation and regulation.
I recommend the letter be read in its entirety. …… http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=More-Questions-Arise-About-USCCB-and-So-We-Might-See-.html&Itemid=102
Hannah Giles: Mainstream Media Ignores Juicy ACORN Nuggets
Hannah Giles, TownHall, October 28, 2009The “Pimp and Pro” story, exposing ACORN’s willingness to advise a prostitute on tax evasion and child sex trafficking, hit America a few weeks ago. There were a myriad number of angles to report, yet the Mainstream Media’s favorite approach seems to be the method in which James O’Keefe and I orchestrated and gathered the information.
It’s like going fishing, but instead of taking a picture and raving about the 750lb Mako shark you caught, you blather on about the bait that was used.
What happens when people get bored? They stop paying attention. What happens when people stop paying attention to an already suffering press industry? We’re seeing that happen now.
Rather than simply complaining about the MSM’s negligence on the story, here are some loose ends the media ignored, from our footage alone, that warrant attention.
With regard to the children:
• Baltimore- Why no mention of the toddlers that were in the room while James and I were being counseled on how to manage our underage prostitution ring?
• San Bernardino- The content of this video was largely ignored except for the part where ACORN worker Tresa Kaelke mentions she shot her husband. What about when she told us not to educate our sex-slaves because they won’t want to work for us? Or when we talked about making money off of clients who would physically abuse the girls? What about the whole transport-the-girls-in-a-school-bus-to-avoid-suspicion discussion?
Attention to the masses:
• Washington, DC- Why were we counseled by ACORN during a first time homebuyer’s seminar, while 30-40 other first time homebuyers sat crammed in a hot room?
• Brooklyn- This office was swarmed with people, busy staff members and a full waiting room. Did we take our number and wait in line? Nope. Why were we given the private attention of three ACORN staffers when clearly more deserving and less intrusive (and even possibly law-abiding!) clients patiently waited?
The political games:
• San Bernardino: What happened to the list of politicians that Ms. Kaelke rattled off when she spoke of her ACORN office’s community involvement and influence? Has anyone set out to uncover just how close these politicians’ relationships are with the San Bernardino ACORN? Does anyone even remember the names?
• San Diego: Has anyone questioned why ACORN employee Juan Carlos would want to help smuggle girls across the Mexican border right after an ACORN-sponsored immigration parade???
• Philadelphia: Why did the Philly office go into damage control mode as soon as the Baltimore story first broke? What do they have to hide?
I would hate to be known as the journalist who never saw the bigger picture, lacked the creativity and ambition to approach a story from a fresh perspective, and contributed to the apathy of an entire nation. And I honestly, from the bottom of my heart, think every wannabe and professional journalist has the same attitude.
So why aren’t they behaving accordingly? Fear? Comfort? A false sense of purpose?
I don’t know about the rest of the press corps but all of the above scenarios scream scandal to me. They’d be worthwhile news.
For Sale: White House Perks
Clinton set the precedent. Bush continued the practice, And it appears now that Obama is perfecting it.
I’m talking about selling access to the White House in exchange for cash – a lot of cash. Matthew Mosk of the
Washington Times reports:
During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings. High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.
One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.
Mr. Obama invited his top New York bundler, UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, to golf with him during the president’s Martha’s Vineyard vacation in August. At least 39 donors and fundraisers also were treated to a lavish White House reception on St. Patrick’s Day, where the fountains on the North and South Lawns were dyed green, photos and video reviewed by The Times and CBS News also show.
Presidential aides said there has been no systematic effort to use the White House complex to aid fundraising, though they acknowledge the DNC has paid for some events at the presidential mansion.
Clinton famously sold nights sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom. But Bill was a piker compared to Obama. He let the bedroom stay go for only a few thousand.
Now Obama has the right idea. Maximize your assets. Getting $300,000 grand for the party just by giving a little face time with the president is just smart thinking. And the possibilities for 2012 are endless.
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/for_sale_white_house_perks.html
Narcissistic Rage in the White House
While psychiatrists often say they can’t do long-distance diagnosis, it really isn’t that hard if you have a lot of information about a person and can watch how he operates from day to day. Intelligence agencies around the world have psychiatric staffs for exactly that purpose.
Obama Administration Never Too Broke to Advance a Radical (Homosexual) Social Agenda
Tony Perkins, Family Research Council
Before we entrust Secretary Kathleen Sebelius with health care reform, maybe Americans should take a closer look at how her Department spends other taxpayer dollars. Even the Washington Post called Friday’s announcement from Health and Human Services (HHS) an “eye opener,” writing that the President’s “gay outreach continues.” A $1.4 trillion deficit aside, HHS has set aside a quarter million dollars to launch the first-ever National Resource Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Elders.
Apparently, our nation is never too broke to advance a radical social agenda. The agency released a statement on the Center last week, saying its purpose would be to “help community-based organizations understand the unique needs… of older LGBT individuals and assist them in implementing programs for local service providers…” In the release, HHS regurgitates the Left’s propaganda to justify the waste, claiming that “1.5 to 4 million” LGBTs are age 60 and older. In reality, HHS has no idea how many LGBT seniors exist. No one does! The movement is only a few decades old, and people who are 80- or 90-years-old didn’t grow up in a culture where it was acceptable to identify with this lifestyle.
Of course, the real tragedy here–apart from the unnecessary spending–is that, given the risks of homosexual conduct, these people are less likely to live long enough to become senior citizens!
Yet once again, the Obama administration is rushing to reward a lifestyle that poses one of the greatest public health risks in America. If this is how HHS prioritizes, imagine what it could do with a trillion dollar health care overhaul!
http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/for-hhs-a-senior-moment
THE BISHOPS AND HEALTH CARE: A Public Line in the Sand
Fr. Roger J. Landry, The Anchor, Editorial, October 16, 2009
Eight days ago, the U.S. bishops drew a line in the sand on health care reform. Three of the bishops who have been most actively involved in the health care debate — Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center, NY, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City — wrote a joint letter on behalf of all U.S. Bishops to the members of Congress warning that unless some major changes are made to present legislation being debated on Capitol Hill, they will have “no choice” but to “oppose the health care bill vigorously.”
This is quite a statement from the leaders of the Church in our country, which has long been one of the strongest supporters of health care reform, but it points to the seriousness of the problems they find in the proposed legislation.
They expressed their clear “disappointment” that progress has not been made on the “three priority criteria for health care reform” they have repeatedly conveyed to Congress as grounds for the Church’s support.
The first of these criteria is to “exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights.” Despite President Obama’s September 9 promise on national television before members of Congress that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place,” attempts to put flesh on those commitments, they note, have been defeated in the Senate.
Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ secretariat of pro-life activities, indicated that the Senate Finance Committee has recently rejected two pro-life amendments authored by Senator Orrin Hatch to put legislative teeth to the president’s words. One amendment, he said, was an attempt to repeat the abortion funding prohibition that has long governed all federal health programs: “no federal subsidies for benefits packages that cover abortion, with rare exceptions; insurers could offer supplemental abortion policies if they were funded solely by the private premiums of those choosing to purchase them.” The second one “would forbid federal agencies, and state and local governments receiving federal funds under this bill, to discriminate against health care providers that decline to perform, refer for, or pay for abortions.”
Both amendments, Doerflinger lamented, were defeated.
The bishops’ letter noted that the conscience rights amendment rejected by the Senate Finance Committee had previously by passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. They said that they “remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes.”
Such legislative maneuvers obviously raise serious questions about whether Democratic leaders in the legislative and executive branches are being honest when they assure that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
The bishops reiterate the principles that “no one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion,” that it is “essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates,” and that there be clear “protections for rights of conscience.” After reviewing present bills, they don’t mince words in their evaluation: “No current bill meets this test.” In uncharacteristically stark language, they stress that “if acceptable language in these areas cannot be found” and “if final legislation does not meet our principles,” they would have “no choice” but “vigorously” to oppose the bill as a whole. What they’re saying is that, even though health care reform is desperately needed,
no amount of good in other parts of the bill could outweigh the amount of harm that could come if these two principles are not met.
The bishops mentioned the other two “priority criteria,” making “quality health care affordable and accessible to everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at or near the poverty level” and ensuring “effective measures to safeguard the health of immigrants, their children, and all of society.” Insofar as they didn’t mention specific ways in which these objectives were not being met, however, we can infer that they are in general satisfied in these two areas. Nevertheless, their stark language with regard to the first priority indicates that they’re not going to be satisfied with obtaining merely two of three. It’s a clear sign of the seriousness of the evil that would be done by the violation of the first criterion. Continue reading
FR. CORAPI: The Battle Between Good and Evil: We are soldiers in God’s army
….There is a battle that goes on in the spiritual order between the forces of God and the forces of Satan, “the adversary.” This battle between cosmic good and evil, between angels and demons, has man caught in the crosshairs….
| As Halloween approaches, we are surrounded by themes of the occult, ghosts, demons, curses, and hauntings. Demonic and occult themes permeate the media at this time of year. Most of this material is pure fiction, yet the part that is not fiction is an acknowledgment that angels and demons exist.
One cannot understand reality if one brackets out a large portion of reality – the preternatural order (angels and demons). If you try to arrive at valid conclusions concerning reality, but have left out a good part of that reality you are engaged in an exercise in futility. So many things today can only be understood in the light of this spiritual reality. Have you ever wondered why so many apparently educated and intelligent people just don’t get it, especially with respect to such life and death matters as abortion? There is a battle that goes on in the spiritual order between the forces of God and the forces of Satan, “the adversary.” This battle between cosmic good and evil, between angels and demons, has man caught in the crosshairs. Man is an active player in his own salvation. We need the help of our allies the angels. To fail to enlist their help is reckless. To fail to realize the reality of the enemy forces, the demonic legions, can be ultimately and eternally fatal. We are at war and our battle is not against flesh and blood, as St. Paul warns us in Ephesians 6. The battle between good and evil, truth and lies, life and death involves these angelic legions – good and evil. We are soldiers in God’s army, like it or not, believe it or not. We must be aware of these fundamental teachings, learn them, and live in accordance with them. Toward that end, I am pleased to announce a free question and answer DVD we are offering for a limited time with all orders over $50. God bless you, |
Newt, Sarah and a New GOP (More Questions Than Answers)
Patrick J. Buchanan
For Sarah Palin, party loyalty in New York’s 23rd congressional district asks too much. Going rogue, Palin endorsed Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican Dede Scozzafava.
On Oct. 1, Scozzafava was leading. Today, she trails Democrat Bill Owens and is only a few points ahead of Hoffman, as Empire State conservatives defect to vote their principles, not their party.
Newt Gingrich stayed on the reservation, endorsing Scozzafava, who is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, and hauls water for the unions.
Scourged by the right, Newt accused conservatives of going over the hill in the battle to save the republic, just to get a buzz on. “If we are in the business about feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed, then I probably made the wrong decision.” How Scozzafava would prevent America’s being “crushed” was unexplained.
The 23rd recalls a famous Senate race 40 years ago. Rep. Charles Goodell was picked by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to fill the seat of Robert Kennedy in 1968. To hold onto it, Goodell swerved sharp left, emerging as an upstate Xerox copy of Jacob Javits, the most liberal Republican in the Senate.
In 1970, Goodell got both the GOP and Liberal Party nominations, and faced liberal Democrat Richard Ottinger. This left a huge vacuum into which Conservative Party candidate James Buckley, brother of William F., smartly moved.
Assessing the field, the Nixon White House concluded that, with liberals split, Goodell could not win. But Buckley might. Signals were flashed north that loyalty to the president was not inconsistent with voting for Buckley. To send the signal in the clear, Vice President Agnew described Charlie Goodell to a New Orleans newspaper as “the Christine Jorgensen of the Republican Party.”
The former George Jorgensen, Christine had undergone the most radical sex-change operation in recorded history.
Liberals went berserk, calling on New Yorkers to rally to Goodell, who began surging, at Ottinger’s expense. Buckley scooted between them both to win. Hoffman may also. But even if he does not, Palin, a conservative of the heart, did the right thing. And the GOP has been sent a necessary message.
For, according to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans now identify as conservatives—only 20 percent as Republicans. If the GOP is not the conservative party, it will never be America’s Party.
But what does “conservative” mean in 2009? And where do conservatives come down on the great issues? For what the right is against—any repeal of the Bush tax cuts, the $787 billion stimulus, Obamacare—is much clearer than what the right stands for.
In 2010, this may not matter, as the Obamakins rule the roost and will be held accountable, and Republicans can unite around what they oppose. Year 2012, however, is problematic.
Then the party must declare itself. And the reality is that the GOP remains a house divided.
What, for example, is the conservative view of the war in Iraq and the Bush economic policies that cost the party both Houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008?
Why did President Bush leave with 27 percent approval? Did Bush policies the GOP once applauded have anything to do with it?
Was Bush free trade responsible for the decline of the dollar and the loss of one in four manufacturing jobs? Is globalization still good for America and NAFTA the deal of the century?
What is the conservative position on reaching out to Russia, as BarackObama has done, on bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, and on canceling that anti-missile system Bush planned in Poland?
“We’re all Georgians now!” John McCain declared. Are we? What is the party position on a “long war” in Afghanistan?
For if America has soured on the war and opposes more troops today, will America be enthusiastic about soldiering on in 2012, after 1,000 or 2,000 more American dead have been shipped home?
Do Republicans support negotiating with Tehran, or cutting off gasoline and starting up the escalator to air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities that are today under U.N. inspection?
Will the GOP propose to stimulate the economy with tax cuts after four straight trillion-dollar deficits? Will the Bush line, “They’ll pay for themselves,” still be credible after Bush’s deficits?
If the largest federal outlays are for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense and interest on the debt, followed by education, housing, homeland security and transportation, where would the GOP use the knife to balance the budget?
According to Gallup, America is moving closer to the Republican position on regulations, abortion, guns and union power. But half of all Americans now favor cuts in legal immigration. Are Republicans willing to call for a moratorium on immigration to tighten the labor market and force wages up? Or does the Chamber of Commerce still call the tune?
Ronald Reagan arrived with new ideas that fit the needs of his time. Where are the Republican ideas that fit the needs of this time?
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/article/56125
NY23: ‘Do You Believe in Miracles’?
Doug Hoffman By Robert Stacy McCain, American Spectator, Oct. 28, 2009 What a difference two weeks can make. Toward the end of an Oct. 14 conference call organized by David Keene of the American Conservative Union, congressional candidate Doug Hoffman plaintively asked, “Does anybody know how to get Glenn Beck interested in this?”
Monday afternoon, Hoffman was interviewed on Beck’s popular Fox News program, evidence of the surging momentum the Conservative Party candidate has experienced in the three-way special election campaign in update New York’s 23rd District.
In the past six days, Hoffman has been endorsed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, former National Republican Congressional Campaign chairmen John Linder and Tom Cole…
The complete list of Hoffman endorsers is a long one, and seems to include nearly every Republican except Newt Gingrich and Dede Scozzafava, the later of whom is Hoffman’s opponent, and the former her only prominent supporter. According to the two most recent polls, the liberal Republican Scozzafava is now in third place, while Hoffman has pulled ahead of Democrat Bill Owens.
Both of those latest polls require a grain of salt because they were commissioned by organizations (Club for Growth and Minuteman PAC) that support Hoffman. Polls or no polls, however, there is a strong sense among observers that Hoffman may be on the verge of one of the biggest political upsets of recent years.
The amazing surge of support toward Hoffman is remarkable in several ways. His grassroots campaign pits him against both the Democratic and Republican national campaign machines in a district which, as liberal media have repeatedly emphasized, went 52 percent for President Obama just a year ago. Hoffman’s evident success is even more amazing because the candidate himself gives new meaning to the phrase “not a professional politician.”
Not only has the bespectacled businessman never sought public office before, but he is far from the ideal candidate in an age where voters expect soundbites delivered by telegenic smoothies. A certified public accountant, Hoffman’s un-politician style was clearly evident in the low-key way he gave his laconic answers to Beck during Monday’s interview.
“Well, I never thought I’d be in politics, but Glenn, quite frankly, I was fed up,” Hoffman said. “I was fed up with what was happening to our country. I was fed up with the out-of-control spending, taxes, government regulations on us and business, and I thought somebody had to step up and do something about it.” Continue reading
2300 STRONG! Pregnancy Resource Centers: Turning Despair to Hope
….The pregnancy center networks Heartbeat and Care Net operate the “Option Line,” a telephone hotline by which the caller is connected with the center closest to where he/she lives. At Priests for Life, we promote this hotline, 1-800-395-HELP, and its corresponding website, [2] www.pregnancycenters.org, in all our public outreach…..
Fr. Frank Pavone, Catholic Exchange, October 28, 2009
One of the most encouraging facts about the pro-life effort in our country is that there are far more pregnancy resource centers (over 2300) than there are abortion mills (about 740).
The centers used to be called “crisis pregnancy centers” and were often advertised with the promise of “free pregnancy tests.” Now, the more common term is “pregnancy resource centers” (PRCs), and the range of services provided goes far beyond pregnancy testing, and includes the services of fully licensed medical clinics.
Moreover, these centers do not just operate on their own with the support of their local communities. Rather, there are large well-organized networks of pregnancy centers, united by a commitment to professional standards of care, expert training programs, and joint efforts to make sure everyone knows exactly where to turn for alternatives to abortion.
All this is good news for the pro-life movement, and to help spread that good news, a report was recently compiled by several of the leading pregnancy resource networks and organizations that foster them. Called “A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life,” this pregnancy center report for 2009 was prepared by Heartbeat International, Care Net, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, LIFE International, and the Family Research Council. The corresponding website is [1] www.apassiontoserve.com.
As the report states, “PRCs serve some 1.9 million people each year with pregnancy assistance, abstinence counseling and education, community outreach programs and referrals, and public health linkages….Every day in the United States pregnancy resource centers assist an average of 5,500 Americans, female and male, young and old, with sexuality-and-pregnancy-related concerns.”
Twenty-nine of every 30 people engaged in pregnancy center work are volunteers, involved with lay and peer counseling, medical services (including ultrasound and STD testing), center upkeep, fundraising, parenting classes, and programs for healing after abortion.
The pregnancy center networks Heartbeat and Care Net operate the “Option Line,” a telephone hotline by which the caller is connected with the center closest to where he/she lives. At Priests for Life, we promote this hotline, 1-800-395-HELP, and its corresponding website, [2] www.pregnancycenters.org, in all our public outreach.
Even the secular world is recognizing the impact of this movement. In January 2008, on the eve of the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, Nancy Gibbs of Time magazine cited the “evidence that the quiet campaign for women’s hearts and minds, conducted in thousands of crisis pregnancy centers around the country, on billboards, phone banks and websites, is having an effect” in reducing abortion rates, which are down by one third from their U.S. high.
And on September 19, 2008, the White House honored the selfless volunteers who work in the pregnancy centers. Dr. Joxel Garcia, who was the Assistant Secretary of Health, bestowed awards in the name of the President on over 150 volunteers and 56 pregnancy center organizations.
We should honor them too, and the best way we can do that is to make sure that everyone knows about their services. Let’s spread the word vigorously!
How the FCC and Liberal Churches Are Scheming to Shut You Up
Over the last week, an outfit called “So We Might See” has conducted a nationwide fast to protest “media violence” — specifically, “anti-immigrant hate speech, which employs flawed arguments to appeal to fears rather than facts.”
The group’s ire is currently aimed at Fox News and conservative talk-show giants. But how long before they target ordinary citizens who call in to complain about the government’s systemic refusal to enforce federal sanctions against illegal alien employers or the bloody consequences of lax deportation policies?
The “interfaith coalition for media justice” is led by the United Church of Christ. Yes, that’s the same church of Obama’s race-baiting, Jew-bashing ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright. Other members include the Presbyterian News Service, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the National Council of Churches.
These religious liberals have partnered with the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which filed a petition in January demanding that the FCC collect data, seek public comment and “explore options” for combating “hate speech” from staunch critics of illegal immigration.
Open-borders groups have sought to marginalize, criminalize and demonize those of us who have raised our voices for years about lax immigration enforcement—and to impose an Orwellian Fairness Doctrine-style policy on illegal alien amnesty opponents.
During the presidential campaign, the National Council of La Raza launched a “We Can Stop the Hate” project to redefine tough policy criticism from the right as “hate.” La Raza President Janet Murguia called for TV networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves and argued that hate speech should not be tolerated, “even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights,” according to Broadcasting and Cable News.
Now the gag-wielders have a friend in the White House — and they won’t let him forget it. Their FCC petition calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration critics cites Obama’s own words in a fall 2008 speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Obama told his amnesty-supporting audience that he knew they were “counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves.”
Unsurprisingly, far-left billionaire George Soros’ money is backing the So We Might See/National Hispanic Media Coalition effort. And remember that the Soros-funded Center for American Progress has provided the Obama White House with its Fairness Doctrine-embracing “diversity czar,” Mark Lloyd.
Last week, United Church of Christ officials met privately with FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps in advance of the So We Might See campaign. Copps then delivered a lecture at the UCC’s Riverside Church in New York City, expressing solidarity with the liberal church leaders’ goals and egging the congregants to take action on “media reform: “We are taking huge risks with our democracy. We need to change that, and we need to do it now. We need to get a grip on what’s happening, and we need to fix it.”
Jeffrey Lord, who happens to belong to the United Church of Christ, reported in The American Spectator that not long after that speech, the UCC sent out a mass e-mail to its millions of members urging them to join the nationwide fast and regulatory drive. The church-state alliance missive directed its followers: “As a participant, you will be asked to sign a petition to the Federal Communications Commission asking that it open a notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media.”
No word on when they’ll be launching an inquiry into the fear-based, fact-free “hate speech” from the mouth of Florida Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, who accused Republicans of wanting sick patients to “die quickly,” likened health care problems to the “Holocaust” and attacked an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as a “K Street whore.”
Or when they’ll be going after MSNBC and Air America radio hate-mongers who have openly wished on their airwaves for the deaths of George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.
But I digress. In the age of Obama, the targets of left-wing hate speech don’t have a prayer.
USCCB Did Not Join FCC Petition on Hate Speech, Spokeswoman Says
….The Department of Communications told CNA on Monday that they had sent their own letter noting the “serious constitutional and regulatory problems” associated with regulating alleged hate speech…..
CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, Oct. 26, 2009
- The Department of Communications of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has said it did not join a petition to the FCC which called for discussion over “hate speech” and its alleged role in violence. Some critics of the petition have cast it as an effort to shut down radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh.
The Department of Communications told CNA on Monday that they had sent their own letter noting the “serious constitutional and regulatory problems” associated with regulating alleged hate speech.
The “So We Might See” Coalition, of which the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Department of Communications is a member, had organized a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski. The letter and its related petition asked the FCC to open a “notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media” and to update a 1993 report on the role of telecommunications in hate crimes. Continue reading
N.Y. Archbishop Dolan Asks Rep. Kennedy to Apologize for ‘Sad’ Accusations
.- Joining the response to U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s charge that the Catholic bishops are spreading discord on health care reform, Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan has said the congressman’s remarks were “sad, uncalled-for, and inaccurate” and has asked for an apology.
In an interview with CNSNews.com, Rep. Kennedy (D-RI), son of the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, had accused the Catholic Church of fanning “the flames of dissent and discord” because Catholic bishops declared that they will oppose the proposed health care reform unless it explicitly prohibits funding of abortion.
Archbishop Dolan commented on Rep. Kennedy’s remarks in an Oct. 26 blog post on the Archdiocese of New York’s website.
“The Catholic community in the United States hardly needs to be lectured to about just healthcare. We’ve been energetically into it for centuries. And we bishops have been advocating for universal healthcare for a long, long time.
“All we ask is that it be just that — universal — meaning that it includes the helpless baby in the womb, the immigrant, and grandma in a hospice, and that it protects a healthcare provider’s right to follow his/her own conscience.
“This is what the President says he wants; this is what we bishops say we want,” he continued.
The archbishop said that Bishop of Providence Thomas Tobin, Rep. Kennedy’s bishop, had a “good point” in saying that the Congressman owes an apology to the Catholic Church.
Bishop Tobin also called Kennedy a “disappointment to the Catholic Church” and criticized his remarks as “irresponsible.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/utiles/myprint/print.php
WHAT DID PATRICK KENNEDY SAY?
WATCH: Kennedy: Catholic Church Fanning ‘Flames of Dissent and Discord’ Over Health Bill
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) said the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion funding in the health care bill is ‘fanning flames of dissent and discord.’
What Happened to Liberalism?
On Tuesday, Oct. 26, 2009, Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) appeared opposite Ralph Nader on “The Ed Schultz Show.” When Nader questioned Frank’s far-left bona fides, Frank quickly responded, “We are trying on every front to increase the role of government.”
This is what today’s liberal movement has become. Stripped to its essentials, modern liberalism is now a nakedly ambitious power grab by corrupt officials, their union allies and faux-victimized purloiners of the taxpayer till. Its underlying premises—the ultimate goodness of government, the ultimate evil of the American population—are plainly inconsistent with the foundations of constitutional philosophy.
It was not always thus. Over the weekend, I had a chance to re-read one of my favorite authors, John Steinbeck. Steinbeck was considered for decades the leading authorial spokesman for the blue collar left. “The Grapes of Wrath,” his most famous work, is undoubtedly a liberal tract—it condemns the harshness of unbridled capitalism and asks (literally) for the milk of human kindness.
Whereas today’s liberal spokespeople have been infected by a virulent anti-Americanism that sees all businessmen as profiteers and all public workers as saints, Steinbeck was a patriot. He worried about the lack of kindness he saw in his fellow men, particularly the willingness to cut corners to make a buck—but at the same time, he saw the virtue of freedom.
In 1960, Steinbeck wrote a piece in Newsday magazine in which he explained his view of morality. “[It’s] very clear that peoples are strong when they are moral in the sense that the good of the group or the nation takes precedence over the selfish good of the individual. And we know from many examples of the past that when this is reversed and the individual raids the public good for his own purposes, the laws of decay have set in.” In short, a nation comprised of a group of individuals governed by a common morality is stronger than an agglomeration of atomistic individuals acting solely for their own benefit.
Steinbeck’s brand of liberalism made political debate a real possibility. After all, conservatives agree that men are neither angels nor devils, and that not everyone will behave with the same honor as an Ayn Rand-ian hero. Steinbeck’s solution to the problem of “immorality” was not necessarily more government, but better men in government, and not necessarily more regulation, but more self-regulation.
Communal standards were important, but there was no guarantee that government would be the best judge of communal standards. As Steinbeck wrote shortly before his death, “It is our national conviction that politics is a dirty, tricky and dishonest pursuit and that all politicians are crooks. The reason for this attitude is fairly obvious—we have had cynical and dishonest officials on all levels of our government.”
Steinbeck was embraced by the 1930s New Deal liberals because he wrongly saw FDR’s collectivist efforts as a corrective to the moral problem posed by supposed individual exploitation of the system. But Steinbeck’s brand of liberalism was rejected wholesale by the left in the 1960s. Suggestions that Americans embrace traditional morality were no longer enough for the left—a broader transformation of American values was necessary.
Critics labeled Steinbeck a relic of the past, his morality was too old-fashioned. Time magazine said that he had entered “late-middle-aged petulance.” Detractors on his left claimed that he was too wedded to capitalism, that he was archaically clinging to nationalistic feelings regarding the military (especially after his reports from Vietnam, which accurately described the Viet Cong as barbaric), and that he was not sufficiently utopian.
And so Steinbeck’s philosophy was jettisoned. The American people no longer had the potential for good—now they were all rapacious individuals dedicated to plundering their fellows. Government was no longer susceptible to corruption; it was now the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, and the best embodiment of the collective. Liberalism, which was once a philosophy of doubt—doubt about both the individual and the government—became a philosophy of certainty.
Modern liberalism is now impoverished by its own simplicity. Government is always the solution, and individualism is always the problem. As President Obama so succinctly put it in 2008, “our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”
Steinbeck’s liberalism put it differently: “I believe that man is a double thing—a group animal and at the same time an individual. And it occurs to me that he cannot successfully be the second until he has fulfilled the first.”
The founders would have agreed with Steinbeck. Today’s liberals agree with Frank and Obama. The day authentic liberalism died, so did the possibility of bridging the gap between modern liberalism and the founding principles of our country.
Hoyer Tries to Appease Stupak on Abortion Funding in Health Care Bill; Stupak Stands by Vow to Kill Bill If No Vote on His Pro-Life Amendment
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)
(CNSNews.com) – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he hoped something could be worked out to address Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) insistence that the House vote on his amendment to explicitly prohibit any federal money from paying for any part of a health insurance plan that covers abortion when the the health care bill (H.R. 3200) comes to the House floor.
Hoyer, however, declined to say whether he would actually support a floor vote on Stupak’s amendment. Hoyer did say that Stupak’s proposal perhaps could be included in what he called “a manager’s amendment.”
Stupak, meanwhile, is standing by his vow to try to kill the health care bill entirely if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not allow a direct up or down vote on his amendment on the House floor.
Stupak told CNSNews.com last week that he has organized a group of “about 40 likeminded Democrats” who are supporting him in this effort.
Hoyer was asked by CNSNews.com at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday if he would support a floor vote on Stupak’s amendment. Hoyer responded that, after talking to his fellow Democrat last Thursday, he was hopeful the issue could be resolved.
“The issue is being worked on and Bart Stupak is very much a part of the working group on this,” said Hoyer. “I talked to Bart Stupak on the floor Thursday and he is very hopeful that something will be worked out that will accommodate the legitimate concerns that Bart Stupak and other members have, and I’m hopeful that will happen.”
When reminded that Stupak told CNSNews.com in a
“What I said was that I hoped that this will be worked out and it may be included in a manager’s amendment and he’s working on that and others are working on that,” said Hoyer.
A manager’s amendment is a package of amendments that is voted on as a whole. They usually pass because their contents are worked out in advance by leaders of both parties.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) (AP Photo)
Louisiana Bishops: Another Episcopal Fumble on Health Care Reform?
By Phil Lawler, Catholic Culture, October 28, 2009
If you read the statement carefully, you’ll see that the Louisiana bishops called for a health-care reform package that respects the right to life. But most people don’t read statements from the bishops carefully. Most people read about the statements, in newspaper stories with headlines like this one:
Bishops’ group supports health reform
The message of that headline is clear and powerful: at a time when pro-life forces are fighting against an unacceptable reform bill, the Louisiana bishops have essentially endorsed it. Moreover this is not just a throwaway statement; the Louisiana bishops have never before taken such a public stand on a piece of federal legislation. So the Louisiana bishops think this is a singularly important bill, and they support it. That’s the message of the newspaper story.
True, it’s not quite the message of the bishops’ statement. You’ll notice the first hint of ambiguity creeping in at the 9th paragraph. (“But conference said it only support reforms that: exclude federal funding for abortion…”) But not many readers are likely to reach the 9th paragraph.
Should we blame the media, then, for giving a misleading account of the bishops’ statement? Only if you’re the sort of person who criticizes bees for stinging. The media do what it is in their nature to do. If you don’t know their nature, you’re responsible for your own ignorance.
Read the bishops’ statement in full– it’s not long– and ask yourself: As an objective reporter, would you say that their opposition to abortion funding is the main story here? No. The statement was not crafted to emphasize that message.
There was a time, several weeks ago, when this sort of detached, theoretical statement might have made a positive contribution to the public debate. But in any important political debate, there’s a point at which the subtle arguments are set aside, and the issue becomes something like a horse race. In the health-care debate, we reached that point at least a month ago. Which side are you on? That’s the only question reporters are asking, and no matter how you answer the question, they’ll fit that answer into one column or the other: for or against. In that context, there’s no doubt where the Lousiana bishops will be placed: they’re in the “for” column.
If you can’t anticipate the likely response to a public statement on a controversial political issue, you have no business issuing such a statement.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=527