Silence in the face of evil is itself evil:
God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak.
Not to act is to act.

—Dietrich Bonhoeffer

http://www.nakedemperornews.com/

2003 Interview Uncovered:
Obama Admitting His Full Support of Partial Abortion and His Main Reason Why!

Obama Supports Partial Birth Abortion . . .  “Because I trust women to make these decisions . . . Part of the reason I voted against the (partial birth) ban was as a constitutional law professor I knew that without an exception for the mothers health it would be struck down by the Supreme Court” . . . April 18, 2007: The Supreme Court Upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act

Rep. Massa Blast Dems: He Was Set Up…Hoyer Lied…May Rescind Resignation

“When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn’t heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983,” Massa said. “And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible.”

When Obama won the Presidency with the help of the LEFTIST Media, Hollywood and Entertainment Liberals, Ethnic Socialists (ACORN), Stupid Non-Business Professionals and Bush Haters, I wrote:

It won’t take 6 months until the people figure this guy out and realize how horrible a mistake they’ve made. And when they come to that realization, the damage to the United States of America will be so great, that it will take a generation or more to repair – IF EVER.

The IDIOTS who not only voted for the Messiah, but also worked their sorry _____ off to promote his Lordship, are now left holding the bag.

Here are two things they will NEVER do:

1 – They will NEVER admit to making a blunder out of all proportion by electing a snake-oil salesman with no positive social history or management experience of any kind.

2 – They will NEVER take responsibility for the curse they’ve imposed upon the immediate and long-term future of their country.

In essence, the people responsible for putting this horror-show in power are in themselves responsible for every cataclysmic decision he makes and the consequences thereof.

In just 6 (SIX) months, the Messiah’s polls are showing the following:

On Healthcare Reform – He’s going under for the third time with polling well under 50%, even within his own Party.

Even though he might be able to muscle a Healthcare Reform Bill by using Chicago BULLY tactics against his fellow Democrats, it will just make things worse.

On Cap And Trade (Cap & Tax) – The Fat-Lady is already singing.

On the Stimulus Package (Tax and Spend) – His popularity is in FREE-FALL.

On the TARP package he took and ran with from President Bush – It’s all but Good-Night Irene.

On the closing of GITMO and “HIS” war on what he no longer wants called the War On Terrorism – He’s standing in quicksand with his head just about to go under.

On a comparison between himself and George W Bush at the same 6 months into their respective first term Presidencies – Bush is ahead of him in the Polls.

On a comparison between He Who Walks On Water and the 12 preceding Presidents between WW II and now – Obama ranks 10th.

On a Poll just conducted, that asks who would you vote for today between Obama and Mitt Romney – It’s a dead heat.

Between Obama and Palin – Obama’s ONLY ahead by 8 points and she hasn’t even begun to campaign.

It seems to me that Obama wants to be everywhere where he shouldn’t be.

He’s personally invested in screwing-over America’s ONLY REAL Middle Eastern ally (Israel) in favor of Palestinian Despots and Murderers.

He’s traveling the world apologizing for the USA while lecturing others on how to do it right, when in fact and truth, he has no experience at doing anything other than getting elected.

He went to the Moslem world in Egypt to declare that America IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION while he heaped praises on Islam, where he compared the “plight” of the Palestinians to the Holocaust.

The Russians think he’s a Putz.

The French think he’s rude.

The Germans want him to stop spending.

The Indians want him to mix his nose out of their environmental business.

The North Koreans think he’s a joke.

The Iranians won’t acknowledge his calls.

And the British can’t even come up with a comprehensive opinion of him.

As for the Chinese, he’s too frightened to even glance their way.

Maybe, if America’s first Emperor would stay home more and travel less, and work a little bit instead of being on television just about everyday, or forget about his Wednesday Date Nights with his Amazon Wife, or stop running to “papered” Town Hall Meetings, perhaps he would have a little bit of time to do the work of the nation.

In all fairness, it wasn’t HARD to be RIGHT in my prediction concerning Obama’s Presidency, even in its first 6 months, so I’m going to make yet another prediction:

OBAMA WILL PROBABLY NOT FINISH HIS 4-YEAR TERM, at least not in a conventional way.

He is such a political HORROR-SHOW, and so detrimental to the USA and his own Democratic Party, that the Democrats themselves will either FORCE him to resign or figure out a way to have him thrown out.

Who knows, maybe he really isn’t a BORN US Citizen and that’s a way the Democrats will be able to get rid of him.

Or – MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, the Democrats will make Obama THEIR OWN LAME DUCK PRESIDENT.

I don’t believe the Democrats have nearly as much love for their country as they do for their own political fortunes. And with Obama, their fortunes are rapidly becoming toast.

The Democrats can keep on blaming Bush for EVERYTHING. But, that game’s already begun to wear real thin.

Their mantra was “WE DON’T WANT 4 MORE YEARS”, which the STUPID people bought, since McCain was nothing at all like George W Bush.

The new mantra will soon become: WE DON’T WANT 6 MORE MONTHS.

Best Regards . . . Howard Galganov

http://www.galganov.com/editorials.asp?ID=1147



Ken Blackwell, American Thinker, March 08, 2010

It’s all supposed to be voluntary, those “home visits” that are tucked into the mammoth Obamacare bill.  If you have a strong stomach, and a stronger bottom, you can find home visitation on pages 568-595. That’s Section 2951 of H.R. 3590, the Senate bill that Harry Reid brought down the chimney on Christmas Eve.

• Families where Mom is not yet 21. (No mention here whether she is married or not.)
• Families where someone is a tobacco user. (Does this include the White House? Watch out, Sasha and Malia! Does Grandpa, whom you love and have taken in, enjoy his after-dinner pipe?)
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. [Emphasis added.]

BORGER: Right. This isn’t going to be subtle at all today. I think this is it. I was speaking with one senior White House adviser just before I came on the air, and he said, think of it this way. This is the last helicopter out of Saigon, OK?

One thing is clear: For life and liberty, we must defeat ObamaCare. Call your U.S. senators and representatives now (202.224.3121). Tell them to vote NO on Obamacare.

Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council. He serves on the board of directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, and National Rifle Association.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/guess_whos_coming_to_your_hous_1.html

….The late enchantment with the little hustler from Chicago appears to have largely dissipated. Buyers’ remorse has set in…..

By Larry Thornbery, American Spectator, March 8, 2010

TAMPA — A fairly good writer once said: There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads, God knows where. Or words to that effect.

The tide in 2010, in Florida and across the nation, appears to be a conservative reaction to the leftward lurch in Washington. We see this among Republicans, independents, even among a limited number of sentient Democrats. The late enchantment with the little hustler from Chicago appears to have largely dissipated. Buyers’ remorse has set in.

Considering the prevailing mood, when the Hillsborough County (Tampa) Republican Executive Committee was looking for a keynote speaker for their Lincoln Day dinner last Saturday, they landed no less than South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, a national conservative leader.

DeMint established the Senate Conservatives Fund to help U.S. Senate candidates willing to fight for limited government, a strong national defense, and family values. He’s active in recruiting conservative Senate candidates, and has strongly backed conservative former Florida House speaker Marco Rubio over moderate-to-liberal Florida governor Charlie Crist for the nomination to the Senate seat Mel Martinez resigned from last summer.

Before the dinner I visited with DeMint. Below is part of our conversation:

The American Spectator: I wonder if you’re seeing what I believe I’m seeing in Florida and across the nation. It appears that in 2010 the goals of the Republican Party and those of the conservative movement are more aligned than they’ve been for decades.

Jim DeMint: I think so — I believe what’s happening is we’re seeing more and more Republicans embracing the energy and passion that you see in the Tea Party movement. A lot of that certainly has a conservative flavor — less government, less spending, less debt. So there’s an accountability being imposed on the party by more activist voters.

I think it’s a very positive thing. The Republican Party across the country has stayed conservative. But a lot of the old guard in Washington has drifted off in another direction. Now I think that’s changing, probably in the House first — you see more and more House members swearing off earmarks, focusing on spending caps. America wants us to make a commitment that if we get the majority again we’re not going to continue spending and borrowing, we’re going to swear off earmarks and balance the budget. So I think we’re moving in the right direction.

TAS: Has the Republican Party learned the right lessons from the routs of ’06 and ’08?

JD: Yes. I certainly learned something. That’s why I started the Senate Conservative Fund. That’s why I’m out here trying to find candidates who can carry the banner inside the Senate. Many Republicans have learned something. There are still some who haven’t, still some who’d say the only problems we had in ’06 and ’08 were George Bush and the Iraq war. It was obviously much deeper than that.

We had the opportunity of a lifetime with a Republican in the White House and a Republican majority in Congress and we just didn’t do what we said we were going to do. We let some of the old guard there, because of the seniority system, spend us into oblivion. We have to change that. A lot of those guys are retired now, or might lose this time. So we’re going to refresh the pool with some new thinking.

TAS: How much of the “old guard” problem is indicated by the fact so much of the party establishment backed moderate Florida Governor Charlie Crist against conservative Marco Rubio for nomination to the Senate seat Mel Martinez resigned from?

JD: Sure. That’s indicative of what we’ve been seeing, that some of the old guard still wants to just find somebody that polls the best and can raise the most money. And what you’re seeing from the grass-roots is they want someone who shares their principles. That’s the big contrast in the Rubio race, and in the Pennsylvania race between Pat Toomey and Arlen Specter. I think you’re going to see that around the country this year. Good primaries are good for the party. Because people feel like they have a choice, they can get engaged. Then it’s more likely we can get everybody together in the general election.

TAS: The old guard certainly did jump in early in the Crist-Rubio race. Some endorsed Crist just hours after Crist announced.

JD: Yes. But I want to be clear. I’m not really critical of John Cornyn of the Senate committee. When he was recruiting at this time last year no one wanted to run as a Republican. Getting people to run was a challenge. But as things have developed and with the country starting to come our way, it’s really important that we field candidates who can embrace what’s going on across the country. All you have to is do look at the polls and add up those who say Republican and those who say Tea Party. If we get all those we add up to about 60 percent. Continue reading →

When Rahm Emanuel recruited pro-life Democrats to run for Congress in conservative districts, he should have known where it would lead. But at that time Rahm had one goal in mind: get power by gaining a majority in Congress.

Wendy Wright is President of Concerned Women for America (CWA.)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35936

By Jed Babbin, Human Events, March 8, 2010

….the chief of staff’s job is to run interference for the president . . . But Emanuel doesn’t play well with others . . . Emanuel is under attack by other White House staff  who are apparently leaking attacks on him . . . Instead of fighting back against his peers, Emanuel is mounting a campaign against the president himself….

Dr. D’Ambrosio studied under Avery Cardinal Dulles for his Ph.D. in historical theology and taught for many years at the University of Dallas. He now directs www.crossroadsinitiative.com, which offers Catholic resources for RCIA and adult and teen faith formation, with a special emphasis on the Eucharist, the Theology of the Body, the early Church Fathers, and the Sacrament of Confirmation.
(This article originally appeared in Our Sunday Visitor and is used by permission of the author.)

http://catholicexchange.com/2010/03/08/127856/

Even I was surprised a few weeks ago at the strength of the positive response to my column asking, “Is It Time for a Catholic Tea Party?” There’s considerable unrest among faithful Catholics who differ with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on some of its major policy positions, as well as its mistakes in funding pro-abortion groups through the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

Part of the turmoil stems from a basic misunderstanding on the part of the Catholic laity concerning the lobbying efforts of the USCCB. Many Catholics assume they’re obliged to support the specific legislative recommendations of the USCCB, whether they agree with them or not.

Many Catholics do not realize that these recommendations — with the exception of those on non-negotiable life issues — require respectful consideration rather than obedient acceptance. Frustration follows for Catholics who don’t realize they are free to differ, and to say so.

Unfortunately, there are clergy who not only contribute to the misunderstanding but also treat respectful disagreement with condescension. The following e-mail was passed along to me by an acquaintance who wrote to his parish priest to question the wisdom of placing the nation’s health-care system in the hands of the federal government. (I’ve edited the e-mail to protect the identity of its author.) The priest’s response:

It is so unfortunate that you have such a myopic vision and have made the conscious decision to NOT learn anything about Social Justice, that you would rather listen and believe the words of Hannity and Limbaugh rather than [local bishop's name] or any Roman Catholic authority on the teachings of the Catholic Church especially in the area of Social Justice and the Social gospel.

I was contacted by Bishop _____ and [another bishop's] Secretary. They both were disappointed in your mindset and your refusal to learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I pray that someday you will spend the time and effort to learn, understand and comprehend the Church’s view on Health Care Reform, Immigration Reform, and the understanding that the Body of Christ isn’t made up of only those people you believe to be given the recognition. With that being said, I do not want you to send me any E-Mails or forward any articles that are contrary to the teachings of the Church. I pray that God may have mercy on you (emphasis added).

The lack of pastoral courtesy requires little comment, except to say that this sort of demeaning clerical tone pushes the suppliant further away and exacerbates the discontent.

More disturbing is the false claim that there is a “Church’s view on health care [and] immigration reform.” To substitute “Church” for the USCCB is to infuse legislative priorities with the aura of episcopal authority about the teaching of faith and morals.

Catholics need to realize there is no “Church view” on the present health-care bill, but there is a position being taken by the bishops’ conference. The Church teaching Catholics are obliged to consider comes in the form of moral principles that must be applied prudentially to the legislation under consideration.

Catholic leadership at all levels could help stem the mounting concern over the USCCB by clarifying the mission of the conference and the ecclesial rationale of its role as a Catholic lobby to the U.S. Congress.

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).

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7768&Itemid=48


Obama: “Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America”

“Jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010.”   — Barack Obama, January 27, 2010.

So much for all that.

After a year of crisscrossing the country hawking his health care boondoggle, President Obama in his State of the Union address graciously took note of a separate, minor problem — America’s continued mass unemployment.

Obama’s first year in office saw the economy bleed millions of jobs and bottom out at the lowest labor force participation rate in 25 years. The official unemployment rate for December was 10 percent, a scary but  misleadingly sunny number which failed to take into account the millions of Americans forced into part-time work or those who left the job market altogether in frustration and disgust.

Naturally, such dismal statistics got fair media play as 2009 wound to a close. So the president paid lip service to the jobs situation when he addressed Congress in January, 2010, promising to buckle down and concentrate on getting Americans back to work in the coming year. A lot of Americans, a lot of jobless Americans, likely gave a sigh of relief and uttered a hearty “it’s about time.”

Unfortunately for them, what came instead was a renewed frenzy to pass nationalized health care, and a corresponding neglect of the still dismal unemployment situation.

The last weeks have seen

1) the release at last of the president’s own health care plan,
2) a much ballyhooed but still farcical health care summit, and
3) yet another public presidential plea (yawn) for the necessity of national health care. And now Obama is reportedly gearing up for yet another health care tour as his allies in Congress prepare to make their final push to pass this misbegotten legislation by Easter.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans continue to fill the unemployment lines or take menial work in order to have something on their resume besides a year-long gap of eating Cheetos and playing Guitar Hero. One can only conclude that Obama does not care whether you have a job or not, so long as he can force government health care down your throat.

And it’s not just the unemployed that Obama seems cool towards. American soldiers are now engaged in some of the fiercest fighting of the Afghanistan war, and sixty six have perished in that theater in the first months of 2010 alone. But you would never know it from Obama, who last gave a major speech on the Afghan war on December 1. As commander-in-chief, he seems oddly and disturbingly detached from the struggles of our sons and daughters in Mesopotamia and Asia.

And then there is our nation’s increasingly desperate fiscal situation. Record high levels of deficit and debt are sucking capital out of the economy, depressing the dollar, and threatening our ability to meet our global military commitments and domestic obligations. Obama’s solution, to the extent that he has one, is to add yet another trillion dollar entitlement to the federal books. That’s like fighting a fire with buckets of gasoline.  Any firefighter who even suggested such an insane strategy would (no pun intended) be fired; sadly, our chief executive has job security until at least 2012.

Some would suggest that this all adds up to an astounding dereliction of duty, fed by megalomania and fealty to long discredited and dangerous ideologies. The more cynical may even see deliberate neglect, as Americans in desperate financial situations may be more likely to acquiesce to an engorged and gorging government. After all, in a nation where employment is often tied to health insurance, a jobless man is a man at least open to a government alternative.

I cannot bring myself to believe that any president would manipulate the economy in such a manner for his own political purposes. But I do know this:  while Obama continues to fiddle his atonal health care tune, the flames of war and recession and fiscal collapse rage all around him.

Does he care? Does he even understand the precipice upon which we stand?

In even the best of times, history would judge Obama harshly for pushing such radical change without broad public and bipartisan support. That he dares ignore both the people’s wishes (that he abandon his health care fetish) and their most dire need (jobs) will assure him history’s most severe reprobation. To his hard-left liberal contingent, he may one day seem a noble failure.

To everyone else, there will be no such magnanimous modifier.

Matt Patterson is a National Review Institute Washington fellow and the author of “Union of Hearts: The Abraham Lincoln & Ann Rutledge Story”. His email is mpatterson.column@gmail.com.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-dereliction-of-duty/?singlepage=true

SURVEY SHOWS MEN MORE HAPPY THAN WOMEN BY NEWS OF UNPLANNED PREGNANCY
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A new survey that has an impact on the abortion debate shows men are more likely to be happy with an unexpected pregnancy than women. The survey gives further credence to the idea that women who have an abortion thinking their boyfriend or husband would not be supportive should think again.

REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS CRITICIZE PRO-ABORTION DAWN JOHNSEN AFTER COMMITTEE VOTE
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Republican lawmakers criticized the decision by the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve the nomination of pro-abortion Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. “She has aggressively opposed even modest restrictions on abortion, such as partial birth abortion, and parental involvement,” Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said.

PRO-ABORTION HOUSE LEADER: PRO-LIFE ADVOCATES CAN’T STOP SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – The leader of the pro-abortion contingent in the House of Representatives claims pro-life advocates don’t have the votes to stop the pro-abortion Senate health care bill there. However, it appears Rep. Diana DeGette’s arithmetic may need some updating as opponents have the advantage.

By Lisa Benson

By Chip Bok

….Homosexuals are less tolerant of criticism than any other portion of the American population, including feminists and Muslims…..

Mike Adams, TownHall, March 08, 2010

It’s understandable that student newspapers at public universities are left-leaning. The advisors of the papers are usually left-leaning and they often have a left-leaning administration leaning on them. So their coverage of issues like abortion and homosexuality is often skewed. But private religious universities once provided a safe haven for those who wished to express views not approved by the immoral minority. It’s tough to comprehend the extent to which they have fallen prey to political correctness in recent years.

The Observer, the student newspaper at the University of Notre Dame, has shown that our nation’s Catholic universities no longer provide an escape from the politically correct orthodoxy running rampant on our nation’s public campuses. And the paper has shown a remarkable contempt for intellectual honesty – not to mention the Ninth Commandment.

The Observer declined to print a column that defends Church teachings on homosexual activity, which was written by Charles Rice – a Notre Dame Professor of Law. Rice has written a regular column with the Observer for nearly two decades.

At 996 words, Professor Rice’s column is a little long. At first, Observer Editor Matt Gamber used the column’s length as an excuse for non-publication. The excuse sounded credible but, after doing a little research, I’ve concluded that his excuse is an outright lie.

When Barack Obama came to speak at Notre Dame, Professor Rice wrote an 1172-word column, which harshly criticized his appearance as at odds with the school’s principles. Note to Matt Gamber: An 1172-word column is longer than a 996-word column. That much is as clear and obvious as the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.

But, now, Matt Gamber is saying that the subject matter of homosexuality could best by handled by printing opposing views on the subject. But why must a student newspaper at a Catholic university censor Professor Rice in the absence of some “opposing viewpoint”? And what are the implications of this new policy?

If Professor Rice decides to write a column opposing polygamy, will the Observer withhold its publication until someone submits a pro-polygamy column?

If Professor Rice decides to write a column opposing incest, will the Observer withhold its publication until someone submits a pro-incest column?

If Professor Rice decides to write a column opposing adultery, will the Observer withhold its publication until someone submits a pro-adultery column?

Finally, if Professor Rice decides to write another column opposing abortion, will the Observer withhold its publication until someone submits a pro-abortion column?

The answers to my four hypothetical questions follow: No, no, no, and no.

And the reason for the pattern is simple: The Observer carves out a special “opposing viewpoint” exception for homosexuality because the Observer is intensely homophobic.

And the reason for the intense homophobia manifested by Matt Gamber and the Observer is also simple: Homosexuals are less tolerant of criticism than any other portion of the American population, including feminists and Muslims.

But the consequences of homosexual intolerance are not as simple. They are twofold:

1) Homosexual intolerance tends to result in the suppression of contrary views, and

2) Such intolerance tends to make others fearful of talking to homosexuals. In other words, homosexual intolerance actually promotes homophobia.

The present situation at Notre Dame is damaging to both sides of the debate. The Observer should allow Professor Rice to present his views (as unthinkable as it may seem to present the views of the Catholic Church at a Catholic university). Then, they may decide whether the views of the opposition warrant publication.

I believe the other side should be presented after Professor Rice’s column is printed if someone at Notre Dame actually thinks the Holy Bible is unclear on the issue. If they do, the Notre Dame community will wind up with a greater appreciation of the truth via its juxtaposition with falsity.

But the prior restraint of the views of Professor Rice is not defensible. While not a technical violation of the First Amendment – Notre Dame is a private school – it is an assault on both Catholicism and common sense. And it leaves many Catholics wondering whether there is any safe haven in this land that once placed religious liberty above political correctness.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2010/03/08/the_university_of_notre_shame

Patriot Post, Monday, March 8, 2010

“It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It [the Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”

—Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on a National Bank, 1791

http://patriotpost.us/

Wreckonciliation

Back in 2005, Senator Barack Obama had an opinion on the reconciliation process–and, like many of his positions since becoming President, it too has “evolved.” “Reconciliation is the wrong place for policy changes,” he argued. “In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked…” (Congressional Record, S. 14150, December 20). Today, the very man who condemned this process for silencing debate is forcing the government takeover of healthcare through Congress on strict party lines using a device that he himself admitted is “wrong.”

Making matters worse, the members tasked with forcing the issue may be paying for it with their political lives. In a new poll sponsored by the Susan B. Anthony List, voters reveal that they’re willing to pitch their Congressmen if they pull the trigger on a pro-abortion bill. Surveying eight of the most politically vulnerable districts, the polling company found overwhelming support for Rep. Bart Stupak’s (D-Mich.) outright abortion ban. Among the findings: “At least two-thirds of voters in each Congressional District opposed ‘using tax dollars to pay for abortions’ and in all districts majorities ‘strongly opposed’… In three districts, opposition reached 80%.” In every instance, voters “were more apt to reject, rather than embrace, a candidate who ‘votes for health care legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion.’” In other words, a vote for the President’s plan might be the cheapest one-way ticket out of Washington.

That fact is not lost on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Yesterday, a testy Pelosi continued her charade on abortion coverage, telling the press, “Let me say it clearly: we all agree… there is no federal funding for abortion… There is no change in the access to abortion. No more or no less: It is abortion neutral in terms of access or diminution of access.”

Perhaps the Speaker should have prepped her party on those points, since two Democrats publicly contradicted her claims within hours of the press conference. “The good news is that the Senate bill does allow [abortion coverage],” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told the Washington Post. Later, Pelosi’s second-in-command, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) veered off the party talking points by saying that he talked to Rep. Stupak about resolving the abortion dispute in a follow-up bill. “Well, separate pieces of legislation could be passed that would relate to that. That’s a possibility.” But Congressman Hoyer, if abortion isn’t in the bill, why would a separate proposal be necessary?

The Darkest Hour Is before This Dawn

After yesterday’s vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, President Obama is on the brink of appointing the most liberal team ever assembled at the U.S. Justice Department. His controversial pick to head up the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Dawn Johnsen, survived her first vote (12-7) in a committee sharply divided along party lines. Although the move brings her one step closer to final confirmation, she might not be ordering her business cards any time soon. After years in the legal and academic world, Johnsen has compiled quite a record of disdain for life, religion, freedom, and judicial restraint. Given her radical background, there may be enough opposition in the full Senate to delay her nomination–though it will take a concerted effort on all of our parts to block her. Contact your Senators this week and tell them that Dawn Johnsen is unfit to serve. To learn why, check out this great column by FRC’s Ken Blackwell and visit our new website.

Bad Blood over FDA Donor Policy

A group of liberal Senators is asking the FDA to make some high-risk deposits in the nation’s blood bank. In a debate that seems to resurface every few years, 17 Senators have issued a letter to the FDA demanding that the agency change its donor policy, which rejects blood from men who have had sex with other men because of the high probability of HIV infection. People who care more about the homosexual agenda than American safety argue that the policy is discriminatory. But that’s exactly the point in a transfusion environment where “100% of the risk is borne by the recipient.”

Despite wave after wave of political correctness, the FDA stands on science to back up the current rule. As the Washington Times notes, men who have sex with men “have an HIV prevalence ’60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors, and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.’” Common sense would argue that most liberal Americans–including these senators–would not want to contract HIV or AIDS to make a political point. Nor is the U.S. alone in this policy. At least eight major nations ban blood donations from homosexual men, including Canada, France, and the Netherlands–all of which have proven to be far more liberal on homosexual policies than America.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10C04&f=PG07J01

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, MARCH 7, 2010

Pope Benedict XVI

Vatican City – Following his visit to the Roman parish of St. John of the Cross on Sunday, the Holy Father returned to the Apostolic Palace for the Angelus.  In his remarks, the Pope underscored the need to see suffering as an opportunity to bring about “a greater good.”

As God appears to Moses in the form of the burning bush, said Benedict XVI reflecting on Sunday’s Liturgy, he also reveals himself in different ways in the lives of each of us. “To be able to recognize his presence, however, it’s necessary that we bring ourselves to his side with knowledge of our misery and with profound respect.”

Otherwise, the Pope said, “we render ourselves incapable of finding him and entering into communion with him.”

In this light, he repeated St. Paul’s observation that God does not  reveal himself to those who are “pervaded by arrogance and thoughtlessness, but to those who are poor and humble before him.”

The Holy Father then turned to the Gospel from Luke which takes place following the deaths of some Galileans who were killed by Pontius Pilate, and others who died when the tower of Siloam collapsed.

Pope Benedict said that “Jesus proclaims the innocence of God, who is good and cannot want evil” as the people in the reading attribute the deaths in the community to divine punishment.

“Do you think that they also were greater transgressors than all the men living in Jerusalem?” asked Jesus in the Gospel. “No, I tell you. But if you do not repent, you will all perish similarly.”

In these words, taught the Pope, Jesus invites the perspective of conversion: “misfortunes (and) mournful events should not arouse curiosity or investigation for possible culprits in us, but they should represent occasions to reflect, to win over the illusion of being able to live without God, and to reinforce, with the help of the Lord, the commitment to changing (our) lives.”

God, in his fullness of mercy, said Pope Benedict, never stops calling us to come back, to grow in his love, to “concretely” help our neighbors and to live in the joy of grace.

The possibility of conversion, “demands that we learn to read the facts of life in the perspective of the faith, encouraged also by the holy fear of God.”

In the midst of suffering and mourning, “true wisdom,” concluded the Pope, is being able to realize “the precariousness of existence and reading the human story with the eyes of God, who, wishing always and only the good of his children, for an inscrutable design of his love, sometimes permits us to be tested by pain to guide them to a greater good.

The Holy Father prayed for the aid of Most Holy Mary to bring all Christians back to the Lord and to support us in “our decision to renounce evil and accept with faith the will of God in our lives.”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/true_wisdom_needed_to_understand_suffering_holy_father_teaches/

Father Daniel Polzer, LC

Luke 4:24-30

Jesus said to the people in the synagogue at Nazareth: “Amen, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own native place. Indeed, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah when the sky was closed for three and a half years and a severe famine spread over the entire land. It was to none of these that Elijah was sent, but only to a widow in Zarephath in the land of Sidon. Again, there were many lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha the prophet; yet not one of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” When the people in the synagogue heard this, they were all filled with fury. They rose up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town had been built, to hurl him down headlong. But he passed through the midst of them and went away.

Introductory Prayer: Lord Jesus, as I prepare for Easter during this Lenten season, I turn to you once again in prayer. I believe that you are my creator and that you have created me to know, love and serve you. I believe that you want to help me fulfill my purpose in life; that is why you came to earth to suffer and die. I offer you my prayer today as a small token of my gratitude, a small token of my desire to live my life for you. I know that sometimes I can let things get between us. Now, during this time of prayer, I want to give all my attention to you so that you – and not my egoism or passions – may govern my life choices.

Petition: Lord, help me to have the humility to accept your will for my life.

1. No Special Privileges Jesus’ fellow townsmen are upset with Jesus for pointing out that there were times in history that God showed his favor to Gentiles and not just Jews. They are upset because they had put their security in their Jewish heritage and the promises made to their people through the Patriarchs. They want to think that because they are Jews somehow God must show them more favor than the Gentiles. We, too, can make this mistake. We think that because we belong to this or that organization, or because we have this or that position, somehow God must give us more attention and special privileges. Isn’t this often the cause of indignation in our lives? We are upset when do not receive preferential treatment. We think that we are deserving of more. Does that indignation ever grow so strong that I try to rid myself of Christ?

2. Seeking God’s Blessings Why did God send Elijah to help the widow in Zarephath and Elisha to cleanse Naaman the Syrian? Surely it was not because they were more important or holier people. God chose them because they welcomed him. The widow in Zarephath happily went to fetch Elijah a drink of water when he asked for it and obediently gave him the last of the food she had. Naaman repented from his indignation and went to bathe in the Jordan as Elisha told him to do. God gives his gifts to those who welcome him.

3. Willfull Acceptance of Christ Christ is perhaps too familiar to his townsmen. They are not able to recognize who he really is. They are upset with the way he speaks, and so they do not accept him. Will I accept Christ in my life? Perhaps he is too familiar to me. I think I know who he is. Perhaps I am unwilling to accept his teachings. Perhaps I am indignant that he has blessed others more than me. The people of Nazareth tried to throw Jesus over a cliff, but they could not get rid of him. Their assault was futile. Christ simply walked away. Christ cannot be gotten rid of. Perhaps there are times in my life when I want to get rid of Christ, but I can never destroy or blot him out of existence. He is always there waiting for me to accept him.

Conversation with Christ: Lord, please help me so that my ideas about how things should be will not cloud my vision of who you are. As I prepare for the approaching Easter, help me to purify myself of all egoism, sensuality, vanity and pride so that I can accept your love with an open heart.

Resolution: I will look for an instance during the day when I can welcome Christ’s teaching into my life.

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

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, MARCH 08, 2010

St. John of God was born in Portugal in 1495 of a devout and charitable Christian family. St. John’s family was poor, so when it was time for John to set out on his own, he decided to leave his parents and join the military. John spent a considerable part of his life in the army, but in the process he fell away from the faith of his birth. Around the age of 40, John’s troop was disbanded and he was forced to seek other employment.

John managed to get a job as a shepherd at a rich woman’s farm. Slowly, as John became accustomed to life outside of the military, he began to realize the depth of his sinfulness and began to repent. After receiving some excellent spiritual direction, John began to direct his energies toward the service of others. John established a house devoted to the service of the sick and began to work one on one with the poor of the area. St. John raised money for his charitable work by door to door begging.

Soon, many people began to realize the goodness of John and the holiness of his work and donated generously to him with both money and provisions. John’s goodness and holiness also attracted followers and the group became the foundation of a religious order. After ten years of intense work, John began to weaken and become ill. After several more years of reduced work, John died in 1550 at the age of 55. He is the patron of hospitals, the sick, nurses and booksellers.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=171