Prayers

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Daily Archives: March 11, 2010

In Case You Missed This From Yesterday (3/10/10)

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

Catholic Campaign for Human Development & Saul Alinsky

The direct connection between Saul Alinksky and Catholic priests and bishops may blow your mind!


SOURCE: RealCatholicTV.com

The first in a brand new series of programs from RealCatholicTV.com. The shocking truth behind the founders of the CCHD

Obama Stimulating a Marxist Revolution Using Taxpayer Money

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe
…“We have to bring this Government down! We have to help destroy this system and that requires increasing the alienation that working people and oppressed people feel. The way this change is going to happen is the destruction of The United States of America!”….


Scott Wheeler :: Townhall.com Columnist By Scott Wheeler,  Townhall, March 11, 2010

A Marxist group that has demanded the “destruction” of the U.S. and issued a call “to bring this government down” is the recipient of stimulus funds from the Obama American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). This same group, the Brecht Forum, has also called for the complete takeover of insurance companies and farms in America.


The controversial stimulus bill, as ARRA is better known, provided funds for the New York State Council on the Arts (NYSCA), which promptly granted the New York City-based Brecht Forum $5,000 in 2009 and $9,000 in 2010. The NYSCA had previously announced in 2008 that due to state budget cuts it would no longer be able to fund 573 organizations that it had previously funded. One of the groups on the list to be slashed was the Brecht Forum. After NYSCA secured $399,000 in stimulus money, the Brecht Forum once again had funding.

The Brecht Forum is host to the New York Marxist School and displays this statement on their website:

Can society be changed significantly for the better? What kind of changes would be needed? and, Who could bring about such changes?

Questions like these are what motivated Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels to develop a method for studying the dynamics of change in societies.

In 1975, a group of civil rights, community, labor, and student activists came together to found The Brecht Forum’s New York Marxist School. They saw the study of Marxism as central, not as a dogma but as a living current of thought and as a vital tool for understanding capitalist society.


In a September 2009 lecture at the Brecht Forum, Jed Brandt, a longtime communist, political activist and outspoken atheist offered the following instructions:

“We have to bring this Government down! We have to help destroy this system and that requires increasing the alienation that working people and oppressed people feel. The way this change is going to happen is the destruction of The United States of America!”

Fox News Channel picked up on Brandt’s call to action and played clips several times the week of March 1st. My own investigation uncovered the link to federal stimulus dollars providing financial support for the Brecht Forum. The grants from NYSCA were ostensibly provided for artistic projects, for example, the NYSCA website shows the following as the description for the Brecht Forum grant:


“The Brecht Forum’s 09-10 program features workshops in the participatory theater techniques developed by the noted Brazilian director Augusto Boal. The program includes monthly workshops led by members of the Theater of the Oppressed Laboratory and two master workshops led by Augusto Boal.”

The website for the Theater of the Oppressed Laboratory describes this form of art in rather revealing political terms,

“Augusto Boal has defined Theater of the Oppressed as a rehearsal for revolution.”

The website further describes its mission as using “interactive theater as an organizing tool” and works with “educators, human service and healthcare workers, union organizers and community activists” to solve perceived problems.


http://townhall.com/columnists/ScottWheeler/2010/03/11/obama_stimulating_a_marxist_revolution_using_taxpayer_money

Apples, Ethics and Armtwisting

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay

by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

by Dana Summers

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

Editorial: Say No to Deadly Loaded Language. There are No ‘Abortion Rights’

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe
‘During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.’ (George Orwell)

By Deacon Keith Fournier, Catholic Online, 3/10/2010


The shorthand phrase 'abortion rights' is a linguistic tool used by journalists who are themselves tools of the proponents of the abortion deception.
The shorthand phrase ‘abortion rights’ is a linguistic tool used by journalists who are themselves tools of the proponents of the abortion deception.


WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) – One of my morning reads each day is the popular “inside the beltway” political publication entitled “Politico.” There is little doubt that it has at least an implicit partisan political slant but it is usually the first source for breaking political news. However, Wednesday morning one of its feature articles revealed how corrupted so much reporting has become.

Most of the media is now using deadly loaded language. In doing so it is also promoting universal deceit, that there is some “right” to kill children in the womb. We have accepted this universal deceit and deadly loaded language at our own peril. It is an example of Orwellian “New Speak” which obscures the insidious nature of an evil which is rotting our culture from the inside out.

In his 1946 essay entitled “Politics and the English Language” George Orwell wrote that “One ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.”


In an article entitled “Abortion is bill’s remaining hurdle”, written on March 10 by Patrick O´Connor, I read the following paragraph which demonstrates my point. The reporter was writing about the continuing Health care Reform effort and the disagreement between those who want to pass the Senate Bill which will fund abortions and those who insist that abortion is not health care. O´Connor wrote:

“The problem at this point is that supporters of abortion rights, including many of the speaker´s (Nancy Pelosi) closest allies, have voted to oppose any bill that includes Stupak´s (Bart Stupak, a Pro-Life Democrat) restrictions. On the flip side, Stupak has said at least 10 colleagues will oppose a bill that doesn´t include them. If both claims are true, that would make it almost impossible for party leaders in the House to get the 216 votes they need to pass the measure.”

The reporter is indicating that those who seek to defend babies trying to avoid pre-emptive lethal strikes against them are threatening these “abortion rights.” The claim of a “right” to abort an innocent child is heinous enough when it is described as a woman´s “Right to Choose.” However, that is the current state of the US positive law since the horrendous Supreme Court decisions in Roe and Doe.

That “choice” is now protected by the Police Power of the State. Rather than being outlawed like all other intentional killings, abortion has been given a status as some sort of “super right.” However, what this article demonstrates is that most of the media is using deadly loaded language to hide the evil.

The current approach to abortion on demand is no different than if the U.S. Supreme Court had somehow found a “right” to kill three week old babies after their birth in that “penumbra” pit they pulled this alleged “abortion right” from in the Roe and Doe opinions. There is no moral difference between killing a baby in the womb and killing a baby outside of the womb.

Imagine if the proponents of slavery called it a “slavery right” just because the Supreme Court said it was legal. Well they in effect did just that in the now dreaded Dred Scott decision! We look back on that case in horror, as we should. The Supreme Court cannot make a wrong a right with the stroke of a judicial quill or a keyboard!

Abortion is feticide. Its horror is being concealed by deadly loaded language intended to make it sound acceptable. Its advocates have fashioned a “rights language” to even try to make it sound noble. They have repeated the phrase “abortion rights”, “abortion rights”, “abortion rights”…. ad nauseam. Their collaborators in much of the media use this deadly loaded language without even thinking about what they are actually saying, or writing.

The notion that one method of intentionally killing an entire class of human persons should be called a “right” is despicable. Abortion is a lethal action which always takes an innocent human life. However, the phrase “abortion rights” is an example of the “decay of language” of which Orwell wrote. Actions do not have “rights”. Only human persons can have “rights.” The shorthand phrase “abortion rights” is a linguistic tool used by journalists who are themselves tools of the proponents of the abortion deception.

There is no “abortion right.” The true Right is the one being denied in every procured abortion, the Right to Life. That preeminent Right to Life is revealed in the Natural Moral Law and confirmed by Medical Science. Children in the womb are our first neighbors. It is always wrong to kill our neighbors. We all know it. We simply pretend otherwise and use deadly loaded language to cover over the evil act. Continue reading →

How to Pollute a Mind: Lessons from John Dewey and Van Jones

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe
….In 1899, Vermonter John Dewey unveiled his vision for remaking American education — a vision swallowed whole by “progressive” educators and used to corrupt the themes and methods used to teach our young . . . Dewey . . employed moral relativism to excuse moral decay. Under the umbrella of “tolerance,” progressive educators conditioned children to misidentify that moral decay as a sign of healthy “diversity.”….

By Chuck Rogér, American Thinker, March 11, 2010


A new Ivy League “fellow” will soon have the opportunity to teach students his belief that white people are “steering poison into the people-of-color communities” and that America should give up its wealth to the American Indians. This June, Princeton University will welcome to its hallowed halls former Obama Green Jobs Czar Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist. The story of how America started down a path leading to communist instructors in our classrooms begs to be told.


In 1899, Vermonter John Dewey unveiled his vision for remaking American education — a vision swallowed whole by “progressive” educators and used to corrupt the themes and methods used to teach our young. In The School and Society, Dewey declared that education doesn’t occur “between teacher and pupil, or between teacher and parent”[i]. Education is a responsibility that society must execute using techniques “previously ignored as trivial, futile, or even condemned as positively evil”[ii].


Characters like Van Jones have a way with technique. Jones endorsed a Maoist anti-police demonstration and believes that Marxists and anarchists are “spiritual people.” Princeton’s new communist has said that taxpayers fund “violence against people of color” and that without wisdom from people such as him, the human “locust” would “scour this planet to the bones.” Jones’s toolbox contains the “positively evil” techniques which Dewey demanded.


Dewey envisioned a society that assures “the full growth of all [of its] individuals,” a society in which “individualism and socialism” become one[iii]. The notion that society must guarantee everyone’s welfare would be pursued by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, George W. Bush, and Obama. But the fact that a collective can never be an individual eludes hopelessly theoretical progressives.


No progressive can tolerate natural law. Blind to nature’s way, Dewey told parents that only a “radical change in education” could fix their children’s immodesty, irreverence, and disobedience[iv]. The likelihood that children just like 1899′s troublemakers caused trouble in every generation throughout Homo sapiens’ existence escaped Dewey. More amazingly, to address immodesty, irreverence, and disobedience, Dewey prescribed not structure, but squishy weirdness:


We must recognize our compensations — the increase in toleration, in breadth of social judgments, the larger acquaintance with human nature, the sharpened alertness in reading signs of character and interpreting social situations, greater accuracy of adaptation to differing personalities, contact with greater commercial activities[v].


So looser morals, tolerance of slackers, and weaker judgment became central to the progressive’s lesson plan. In 1899, moral relativism and “diversity” debuted in American education.


Following the principles of Friedrich Froebel, “inventor” of kindergarten, Dewey proclaimed that schools should condition children for the desired “social order”[vi]. Teachers must stress “mutually helpful living” in order to indoctrinate children in collectivism. Schools must deemphasize facts, knowledge, and real-world skills[vii]. Dewey changed the “whole conception of school discipline,” thus birthing the noisy, disorganized classroom whose business is to fill children with “a spirit of social cooperation and community life”[viii]. The kids don’t need to understand “economic value.” They need “social power and insight”[ix]. Today’s anti-competition, no-homework zealots, like The Homework Myth author Alfie Kohn and his groupies, go ga-ga over such baseless mush[x],[xi],[xii],[xiii],[xiv].


Dewey drafted educators in a war on traditional America, promising that when teachers ready each child for “membership” in society,


… saturating him with the spirit of service, and providing him with the instruments of effective self-direction, we shall have the deepest and best guaranty of a larger society which is worthy, lovely, and harmonious[xv].


With this proclamation 111 years ago, Dewey launched the progressive mission to erase individuality and breed automatons to “serve” society. It’s hard to ignore the similarity between Dewey’s “worthy” society and Barack Obama’s call for “all students to engage in service” to America.


Not satisfied with simply envisioning a lovely society, Dewey cast one of his most destructive legacies when he made the otherworldly contention that the child must “play” to his heart’s content in order to achieve his “supreme end,” the “fulness [sic] of realization of his budding powers, a realization which continually carries him on from one plane to another”[xvi]. Dewey’s silliness fired up the “self-esteem” movement. Stroke children. No pressure. Their “budding powers” will kick in eventually, maybe.


In One Nation under Therapy, Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel find that Dewey’s kind of foolishness produces “overprotected children” who are “denied essential life lessons,” instilled with unearned self-esteem, and duped into believing that “that they should be judged by no one’s standards but their own”[xvii]. In his book Mexifornia, classicist Victor Davis Hanson observes that people gain “self-esteem in accomplishment rather than in therapeutic rhetoric”[xviii]. Self-esteem is a product of, not a motivator for, achievement. Progressives wave at such truth as it passes by.


Dewey ridiculed the learning of facts and ignored Psychology 101 in warning teachers against using grading, non-promotion, and after-school detention to get results. The child must specify his own “relevant material”[xix]. Because educators have increasingly embraced Dewey’s rubbish, it would come as no surprise should today’s government-schooled adult name John, Paul, George, and Ringo as the “dudes” on Mount Rushmore or identify the Civil War as “that nasty thing in the ’60s.”


To summarize, Dewey, and pseudo-intellectuals after him, employed moral relativism to excuse moral decay. Under the umbrella of “tolerance,” progressive educators conditioned children to misidentify that moral decay as a sign of healthy “diversity.” Tolerance festered into acceptance of students utterly deficient in basic knowledge such as America’s history and founding principles. Dewey-influenced teachers now allow radical politicians to enlist students in radical agendas.


Pamela Geller reports that Obama’s “Organizing for America” recruits children for indoctrination in Marxism, the teachings of Pentagon bomber William Ayers, global warming alarmism, and pro-illegal immigration propaganda. Obama’s recommended reading for the kids includes Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and leftist Rinku Sen’s Stir It Up. Brainwash a child in militant anti-Americanism, and maybe he’ll be a future Van Jones.


A century of Dewey has swept the likes of communist Jones into our classrooms and put fear in educators to label Jones’s venom as venom. Corrupted techniques and dumbed-down curricula have normalized ignorance of America’s unique goodness and brought forth a characteristic exhibited by all socialistic societies: massive dependence on government handouts. Though the current recession contributed to a rise in dependence, it was progressivism itself and Dewey-saturated education that crushed both the economy and Americans’ resolve.


How much is Dewey still embraced today? Run a Google search on “John Dewey.” A scan of the two million hits will reveal schools of every kind smitten by Dewey dogma. Brussels Journal member and Pope Center for Higher Education Policy contributor Thomas Bertonneau tells me that Dewey’s theories form a “kind of currency, which people take for granted, and which has a certain ‘buying power’ in institutions.” Sadly, English Professor Bertonneau is correct. Culturally toxic Deweyism is American education’s legal tender, a worthless currency backed only by a long-dead Vermonter’s sermonizing.


A physicist and former high tech executive, Chuck Rogér was a columnist for a Phoenix newspaper and now blogs at chuckroger.com. Email: swampcactus@chuckroger.com Continue reading →

Emperor Obama and the Kamikaze House Democrats

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe
….the president continues to pressure Democrat troops on a mission of self-destruction, saying, “I don’t want you to feel discouraged. I want you to understand that we’ve got to push that much harder.” And so, Thunder Gods in the House and Senate strap themselves to a poorly constructed bill resembling a rickety, wooden kamikaze plane, built solely to crash and burn….


“I am not going on this mission for the Emperor or for the Empire…I am going because I was ordered to.” These words were spoken by one of Japan’s first kamikaze pilots, Lieutenant Yukio Seki, after being compelled to volunteer for a suicide mission. Though apprehensive, the pilot maintained the insight to comprehend that “Japan’s future was pale if it was forced to kill one of its best pilots.”


So it is in Washington, D.C. as a “divine wind” blows through the nation’s capital. Although in the majority, Democrats are experiencing decreased capacity to successfully wage political war. Disregarding plummeting polls and lost elections, which comprise a formidable opposing armada amassing on the horizon; Barack Obama remains resolute in his reluctance to surrender.


During WWII, Takijiro Onishi, Vice-Admiral of the Japanese Navy, faced down a huge invasion in the Philippines. Anticipating crushing defeat, Onishi requested that the suicide Thunder God Corps be utilized as a tactic to assure that Japanese bombs made contact with American warships. Human being-guided, bomb-laden aircraft on a volatile suicide collision with enemy targets is a tactic that bomb-thrower Obama may employ if he passes health care reform by detonating the “nuclear option” of reconciliation.


Presently, when it comes to health care reform, the future of the Democrat Party is as pale as Japan’s ability to prevail with a hundred operational aircraft confronted by an American flotilla. In response, Obama has decided to implement a similar last-ditch effort in an attempt to “snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.” Under the command of Emperor Obama, and in an attempt to avoid a rout, Democrats are being coercively recruited to take part in assault death units. What’s the mission? Prevail in the president’s policy war — even if it costs political lives.


For a year now, winning the health care reform battle has been a difficult hit-or-miss undertaking for Obama. Blue Dog Democrats and conservative Representatives in the House and Senate, aware that constituents are opposed to the cost and control aspects of the sweeping health care reform bill, resist supporting Obama’s legislation. Thus the war drags on and on as Democrats portend the scope of defeat. As a result, Emperor Obama has requested that Democrats transform themselves into health care reform “smart bombs,” sacrificing all for the cause.


“Senator Lamar Alexandar (R-Tenn) said that if Democrats push health care through under the majority only process known as reconciliation, it will be a ‘political kamikaze mission’.” Obviously the senator uses the word “kamikaze” in a “hyperbolic or metaphorical fashion to refer to non-fatal actions which result in significant loss for the attacker, such as injury or the end of a career” — and career-ending it will be!


Yet Obama considers the goal of reforming health care critical enough to warrant the sacrifice of seats in November, and apparently even the Oval Office in 2012. Encouraging a pervasive self-slaughter mentality, Obama daily reminds indecisive liberals that “[t]o maintain a strong presidency, we need to pass the bill.”


President Obama pushed wavering House members to OK health-care legislation for his own political standing and for theirs, as the battle came down to a bare-knuckle brawl for votes. Obama met with groups of liberal and more conservative Democrats in the White House to try to assemble a winning coalition.


Well aware that first-term presidents typically suffer party losses, the president continues to pressure Democrat troops on a mission of self-destruction, saying, “I don’t want you to feel discouraged. I want you to understand that we’ve got to push that much harder.” And so, Thunder Gods in the House and Senate strap themselves to a poorly constructed bill resembling a rickety, wooden kamikaze plane, built solely to crash and burn.


Obama demands that Democrats disregard generic ballot poll predictions and constituent sentiment and willingly sacrifice political life and limb for what is deemed honorable partisan death. The result: Democrats are presently being subjected to “brutal training” similar to that of a WWII kamikaze pilot, whose preparation for death was “justified by the idea that it would instill a soldier’s fighting spirit.”


Volunteering to “fall on the sword,” a nonverbal proclamation has been issued by Democrats similar to that of 24th kamikaze pilot Commander Seki, who said, “It is better to die, rather than to live as a coward.” Why is the party of Pelosi and Reid responding in such a dramatic way? Because in an attempt to rouse pusillanimous politicians to make the ultimate sacrifice, reverberating through the hallowed halls of power, the virtuous voice of the Speaker of the House can be heard.


Nancy Pelosi, whose seat is not in jeopardy, is of the opinion that “[i]t will take courage to pass health care.” Pelosi posed and answered her own question, saying, “But why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress … Time is up, we really have to go forth.”


Emperor Barack contributes further inspiration to Democrats, reluctantly adjusting rising sun hachimakis on clammy foreheads. Obama claims to “[k]now some … might feel discouraged because changing the ways of Washington is hard. It’s harder than a lot of [Democrats] thought it might be. Sometimes [Democrats] feel … that it’s not possible. You might want to give up.” Obama pleaded, “Don’t give up.”


It is not surprising that discord prevails within Democrat ranks. Japan’s special suicide program was a divisive matter within Japanese military circles as well. Veteran field commanders considered the notion of one-way death missions a colossal waste of valuable lives. Nevertheless, many naysayers were eventually convinced because the kamikaze “sure-hitting attack crafts” delivered “virtually all late war losses.” In like manner, as die-hard Blue Dog ideologues refuse to self-destruct over issues like abortion language, it is probably only a matter of time before Bart Stupak (D-MI) is persuaded to relinquish opposition and shout “banzai” on behalf of the Democratic Party.


WWII wound down with the Japanese steadfastly believing that “because they were fighting for their Emperor God, the Kamikaze would bring them deliverance at the darkest hour.” Twenty-five hundred (2500) dead human torpedoes and a lost war later, the faithful were the misguided ones.


Pausing for a moment from memorizing the inspiring health care bill and slamming back warm socialist sake while shouting “hissatsu” for the cause — it would serve Democrats well to reacquaint themselves with history. “On the eve of the Japanese surrender, Takijiro Onishi ended his own life, leaving a note of apology to his dead pilots — their sacrifice had been in vain.” As Election Day draws near, the suicidal harakiri that Obamacare demands from the Democrat Party will likewise be proven futile, because in the end — its the American people who will win this war.


Author’s content: jeannie-ology.com

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

Al Capone Would Be Proud

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

Patriot Post, Chronicle, March 10, 2010


Editorial Exegesis

“The strange case of New York Democrat Eric Massa keeps getting stranger. Rep. Massa resigned last week under a cloud of ethics charges, but he now claims he was pushed out for opposing health care reform. Massa claims he’s being investigated by the House Ethics Committee on trumped-up charges that he sexually harassed a male aide. If true, it shows the White House and Congress are indeed being run the ‘Chicago Way’ — with bluster, threats and even physical intimidation. Wasn’t this administration supposed to be different? Let’s be clear: We don’t know for sure the White House did anything illegal. But if any of Massa’s claims is true, it speaks volumes about the thuggery of an administration desperately trying to pass its wildly unpopular health care bill. For his part, Massa says Obama aide Rahm Emanuel went ballistic when he dared to vote against ObamaCare last November. With health care hanging by a string, Emanuel and the House leadership bullied him into resigning last Wednesday, Massa now claims. ‘Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill,’ the one-term congressman told radio station WKPQ Sunday. ‘And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they’ve gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots.’ … White House and House Democratic leaders have all issued denials. So, for now, the political row has a ‘he said-she said’ quality. But if what Massa says is even partly true, and it certainly seems plausible, this is gangsta politics, Chicago-style — a case of political bullies making an example of someone to get others to fall into line. Al Capone would be proud.”

–Investor’s Business Daily

http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/03/10/chronicle/

Homily of the Day: Are You With Me Or Against Me?

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

Monsignor Dennis Clark, Ph.D., Catholic Exchange, March 11, 2010

Jer 7:23-28 / Lk 11:14-23

Where do you stand?  It’s a pointed question that gets asked a million times every day, in the corporate board room, at the city council, in the White House, at the PTA meeting, and over and over inside our homes.  Where do you stand?  What are you really about?  Are you with me or against me?

Often our answer would confuse and amaze even the Oracle of Delphi.  What did that platitude mean? Anything? Very often, nothing at all — just a stall and filler.  But for those of honest heart, the question persists and demands an answer: What are we really for? Are we with the Lord or not.  The ‘vanilla’ comfortableness of our culture, where to go along is to get along, is not enough.  For this is God asking the question, the one who gave us life and who sustains it day by day.

It’s a fair question and we have to choose.  After a certain point, treading water is no longer an option.  And so our answer comes from the only place that counts, not fine words from the lips but silent words from the innermost heart: I am yours, Lord, and all I have is yours.  Speak, Lord, for I am listening.

The moment we speak those words from deep within will be the first moment of true freedom in all our lives.  So waste no more time, speak the words from within, and be free.

http://catholicexchange.com/2010/03/11/127325/

Can Nancy Pelosi Get the Votes?

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe
The Senate bill’s abortion language is not the House Speaker’s only problem.


Barone
Chad Crowe


 Are there enough votes in the House to pass the Senate’s health-care bill? As of today, it’s clear there aren’t. House Democratic leaders have brushed aside White House calls to bring the bill forward by March 18, when President Barack Obama heads to Asia. Nevertheless, analysts close to the Democratic leadership tell me they’re confident the leadership will find some way to squeeze out the 216 votes needed for a majority.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indeed shown mastery at amassing majorities. But it’s hard to see how she’ll do so on this one. The arithmetic as I see it doesn’t add up.

The House passed its version of the health bill in November by 220-215. Of those 220, one was a Republican who now is a no. One Democrat who voted yes has died, two Democrats who voted yes have resigned, and one Democrat who voted no has resigned as well. So if everyone but the Republican votes the way they did four months ago, the score would be 216-215.

But not everyone is ready to vote that way. The House bill included an amendment prohibiting funding of abortions sponsored by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak. The Senate bill did not. Mr. Stupak says he and 10 to 12 other members won’t vote for the Senate bill for that reason. Others have said the same, including Minnesota’s James Oberstar, chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Dan Lipinski, a product of the Chicago Democratic machine.

Mrs. Pelosi may have some votes in reserve—members who would have voted yes if she needed them in November and would do so again. But we can be pretty sure she doesn’t have more than 10, or she wouldn’t have allowed the Stupak amendment to come forward at the last minute the first time. She also might get one or two votes from members who voted no and later announced they were retiring.

But that’s not enough—and there are other complications. Voting for the Senate bill means voting for the Cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana purchase—the price Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid paid for the votes of Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. It’s not hard to imagine the ads Republicans could run attacking House members for sending money to Nebraska and Louisiana but not their home states.

To be sure, Democratic leaders say they want to repair the Senate bill by subsequent legislation that could be passed with 51 votes in the Senate under the reconciliation process. But they have yet to produce such a bill. It can’t include the Stupak amendment, which experts say doesn’t qualify for the reconciliation process. And there’s no way they can credibly promise the Senate will pass it. Senate rules allow many forms of obstruction. The reconciliation process is littered with traps.

There is also the House’s historic lack of trust in the Senate, which is on display by Democrats who voted yes in November. “No, I don’t trust the U.S. Senate,” Wisconsin’s Steve Kagen told WLUK-TV in Green Bay, this week. New York’s Dan Maffei was quoted in the Syracuse Post-Standard on Monday that “I will trust the president, but I will not trust the Senate.”

“I am not inclined to support the Senate version,” Nevada’s Shelley Berkley told the New York Times last week. “I would like something more than a promise. The Senate cannot promise its way out of a paper bag.” Her district voted 64% for Barack Obama.

Other Democrats who voted yes seem to be wavering. “I don’t think reconciliation is a good idea,” Indiana’s Baron Hill was quoted recently in Bloomberg News. New York’s Michael Arcuri says he’s a no for now. “There would have to be some dramatic changes in it for me to change my position,” he recently told the Utica Observer-Dispatch.

“I think we can do better,” California’s Dennis Cardoza told the New York Times last week. “If the Senate bill is not fixed, that”—voting no—”is not a flip-flop,” Nevada’s Dina Titus told the Las Vegas Review-Journal last week. “I see that as standing by your convictions.” Most of these members represent districts which went Republican some time in the past decade—and could easily do so again if national polls are an indicator.

There’s a more fundamental problem for the Democratic leadership: Their majority is not as strong as their 253-178 margin suggests.

A Democratic House majority tends to have fewer members with safe seats than a Republican majority. Consider that in 2005 Speaker Dennis Hastert had 214 Republican members elected in districts Mr. Bush carried, just four seats short of a majority. Today Speaker Nancy Pelosi has 208 Democratic members elected in districts Mr. Obama carried, eight seats short of a majority.
Continue reading →

Abp Chaput Weighs In Catholic School’s Battle with Lesbian Couple

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe
….Chaput  “the main purpose of Catholic schools is religious; in other words, to form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values.”. . . . He explained that while many archdiocesan schools “accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families,” they have welcomed them so long as they “support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions.”….

By Peter J. Smith, March 10, 2010, LifeSiteNews.com

BOULDER, Colorado – Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, Colo. has stepped in to support a Boulder Catholic grade school who told a lesbian couple told they would no longer be able to enroll their children.

The parish school of Sacred Heart Church in Boulder had informed a lesbian couple that their two children – one in kindergarten and another in pre-school –  would be allowed to complete the year, but could not re-enroll, citing Archdiocesan policy requiring children’s families to practice Christian values.

Chaput addressed the controversy in his Wednesday column for the Denver Catholic Register, saying that “archdiocesan policy was followed faithfully in this matter, and the policy applies to all Archdiocese of Denver schools.”

“Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced.  That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents,” said Chaput.

“That isn’t fair to anyone—including the wider school community.”

The Archdiocese of Denver’s admission policy states that “no person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school’s philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese.”

The lesbian “couple,” who have remained anonymous, had already enrolled the children under their care in the Sacred Heart of Jesus School for the current school year when their relationship came to light.
Continue reading →

Reagan-Obama Debate

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

How I wish such a debate could really be held. The Gipper vs. The South Side Messiah!  Reagan succeeded in moving the country politically to the right for decades.  Obama is attempting to do the same for a leftward trajectory.  Reagan lost 26 seats in the House, but won re-election in 84 with an economy that recovered.  Obama is the opposite of Reagan politically, but I assume that he is hoping this history can repeat for him in 12.  If he is Machiavellian enough he may even be hoping that the GOP takes control of Congress in the Fall, thereby giving him an opportunity to attack a Republican Congress in 11 and 12.  The problem for Obama is that Reagan had a substantial part of the GOP that was completely dedicated to him.  I don’t think Obama enjoys that type of adulation in his party.  If the economy continues to be weak, I believe Obama may face a serious primary challenge in 12, something Reagan did not have to worry about in 84.  Reagan wasn’t just President, he was the leader of the Conservative movement in the Republican party and had been since 76.  Obama enjoys no such status on the Left of the Democrat party.

SOURCE: http://the-american-catholic.com/

The Great Lie: Pope Benedict XVI On Socialism

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe
….Large swaths of American academia are in denial. So too are major parts of the American and European clerical class, which is still under the impression that socialism represents a gospel ideal that has yet to be tried. One suspects that the entire history of the 20th century passed them by, for they have learned nothing from the poverty, despotism, and vast suffering wrought by the socialist ideology….

By Rev. Robert Sirico, Inside Catholic, March 9, 2010



One doesn’t usually expect a thorough-going reconstruction of the history of socialism in the late 19th century from the pope, but Benedict XVI has delivered to us a wonderful — and oh-so-needed — reminder of what socialism was (and is), and why it went wrong. One can’t but marvel at his intellectual power:  He has discerned the essential problem that has evaded vast numbers of academics for 100 years.

What’s more, he has done this in a time when socialism as an ideology seems to have been unfazed by the collapse of the communist experiment. Visit the philosophy and English departments on most college campuses, and you will still find intellectuals waxing eloquent on the glories of socialist theory. Students are still encouraged to imagine that it could work.
What about the Soviet Union? We are told that this wasn’t really socialism. And what about Nazism — the German word for national socialism? Oh, that’s not socialism either. What about the growing impoverishment in once-rich countries with social democratic governments? The failure of micro-socialism in the United States, where entire communities have lived on government subsidies and are plagued with frightening levels of social pathology? They say that this is not socialism either.
Large swaths of American academia are in denial. So too are major parts of the American and European clerical class, which is still under the impression that socialism represents a gospel ideal that has yet to be tried. One suspects that the entire history of the 20th century passed them by, for they have learned nothing from the poverty, despotism, and vast suffering wrought by the socialist ideology.

Not Benedict. He wants to talk about it. It fits his message of hope precisely. Are we to discover our hope in salvation from God or from some material transformation?

The passages occur in his great encyclical Spe Salvi (“in hope we are saved”). He addresses this core Christian virtue and explains what hope is and what it is not, what salvation is and is not.

History is strewn with intellectuals who imagined that they could save the world — and created hell on earth as a result. The pope counts the socialists among them, and Karl Marx in particular. Here was an intellectual who imagined that salvation could occur without God, and that something approximating the Kingdom of God on earth could be created by adjusting the material conditions of man.

History, in Marx’s view, was nothing but the crashes and grinding of these material forces. There was no such thing as a fixed human nature. There was certainly no God who is the author of history. There are no permanent themes that follow along moral lines. Rather, we are all merely pushed around by large and impersonal forces. But it is possible to wrest these forces within our control, to our advantage, provided we take the right steps.

And what are these steps, in Marx’s view? The expropriated working classes must take back what is rightfully theirs from the exploiting capitalist classes. Call it mass thievery, if you like — the point is to gain power over the production forces of society. This is where history is headed anyway, said Marx; we only need to give it a shove in the right direction to achieve the bliss of socialism. How will it work? Well, Marx never thought much about that. Why should he? The large and impersonal forces of history would hammer that out. It was only his job to describe the great events that lead to the revolutionary environment. What follows after is not really a matter of bourgeois science; we must simply accept on faith that somehow, somewhere, sometime, socialism will begin to work brilliantly.

Bizarre? It’s not so strange. We can look to the ancient world and see that many of the greatest intellectuals imagined that there would come a time when the problems of economics — scarcity, ownership, calculation, money — would vanish and utopia would appear. You might say that this is a longing for the Garden of Eden, but it neglects a critical fact: Human nature is the same now as it always was. There will always be a need to advance beyond a state of nature. The economic problem is intractable. Simply asserting that the new world will magically appear begs critical issues, such as how we are to feed, clothe, and house people.

Benedict sums the problem up neatly:

Together with the victory of the revolution, though, Marx’s fundamental error also became evident. He showed precisely how to overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized. Then, indeed, all contradictions would be resolved, man and the world would finally sort themselves out. Then everything would be able to proceed by itself along the right path, because everything would belong to everyone and all would desire the best for one another.

Socialism included no plan for the post-revolutionary world. Once economists discovered this central flaw, they seized on it and pointed out that socialism had no system in mind for solving the core economic problem of allocating scare resources among unlimited needs, and certainly no system for creating the new wealth that would be needed to sustain a rising population.

Nonetheless, the revolution happened:

Thus, having accomplished the revolution, Lenin must have realized that the writings of the master gave no indication as to how to proceed. True, Marx had spoken of the interim phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a necessity which in time would automatically become redundant. This ‘intermediate phase” we know all too well, and we also know how it then developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving behind a trail of appalling destruction. Marx . . . omitted to work out how this new world would be organized — which should, of course, have been unnecessary.

The “appalling destruction” referred to here is a reference to war that occurred soon after the revolution. Millions died in famine and wholesale slaughter. It became clear to Lenin that he had to back away, lest there be no one left to rule. That he did — and just in time, with the New Economic Policy. But the dictatorship continued. So too did the poverty relative to capitalist nations.

So why did Marx never explain how socialism would work?

His silence on this matter follows logically from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper. He forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he forgot man’s freedom. He forgot that freedom always remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right. His real error is materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem him purely from the outside by creating a favourable economic environment.

And so the pope has put the problems of economics exactly in the right light: the practical issue that needs to be settled within the framework of a sound morality and understanding of human nature. Socialism fails for a precise and practical reason: It has no system for pricing factors of production to make economic calculation possible. Prices come from the exchange of the very private property with which socialism dispenses.

And yet the moral problem with socialism is more profound: It exalts theft as an ethic and overlooks the human right of freedom.

Would that every Catholic interested in economics would read this encyclical. Some are getting the message already: The Catholic Church in Venezuela worked against Hugo Chavez’s dangerous plan for nationalization and regimentation of economic life. Someday, the world will come to learn the lessons that the history of socialism has taught. In the meantime, Benedict XVI is proving to be a wonderful teacher.


Rev. Robert A. Sirico is president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Grand Rapids, Michigan. This column originally appeared on January 8, 2008.

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2155&Itemid=48

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, March 10, 2010

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

Flip This House

The only significance of March 18 to most Americans is that it’s the morning after their St. Patrick’s Day parties. To House and Senate Democrats, it holds a different meaning. One week from tomorrow is the deadline that President Obama handed down for final action on the Senate-passed health care bill. Fox News breaks down why the White House is “so invested” in March 18. “…[If the House passes the Senate plan, it] would give Senate Democrats a full week, starting March 22, to move a so-called ‘fixes bill’ (incorporating Obama’s changes to the Senate bill) through the chamber under reconciliation procedures requiring only a 51-vote majority.” If Democrats miss the window, they risk throwing away a 16-month legislative battle with absolutely nothing to show for it but unpopularity. After the Easter recess, the parties start moving into the campaign season when most Democrats will want to put some distance between a health care vote and their re-election.

Make no mistake. The success or failure of this bill hinges on taxpayer-funding of abortion. Every hour there seems to be a new solution to the bipartisan opposition on abortion. While reconciliation only requires 51 votes, the Stupak language received 45 votes in the Senate. If the pro-life House members believe they can vote for the Senate bill (which includes taxpayer-funded abortion) and then count on the upper chamber to use the reconciliation process to strip out that funding, they’re denying reality.

The only way to protect taxpayers from becoming complicit in the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade is by calling on the Senate to act first. Under the rules, the Senate could reenroll the health care bill without the controversial abortion funding. The House could then vote on an abortion-free bill without any strings attached. Contact your leaders today and tell them not to agree to any deal that includes government-funded abortion. For the latest on the debate, don’t miss FRC’s health care webcast on Tuesday, March 16 in partnership with the American Family Association (AFA). So far, the line-up includes Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, and Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life. Register for the live stream today by clicking on our events page.


For Richer or (More Likely) Poorer

When same-sex weddings kicked off in D.C. yesterday, the city wasn’t seeing anything but dollar signs. In an absurd article in today’s Washington Post, reporters tried to argue that counterfeit marriage could be the economic salvation of the city’s economy. In a region with 12% unemployment, local officials claim that redefining marriage “will create 700 jobs and contribute $52.2 million over three years to the local economy.”

Not so fast, says FRC. The last census counted 3,678 same-sex partner homes in D.C. Assuming that number has stayed roughly the same, then the 150 who applied for marriage licenses yesterday would amount to a whopping four percent of the local homosexual population–hardly the stuff of economic recovery. For the Post‘s $52.2 million projection to come true, all 3,678 of those D.C. couples would have to get married and spend over $14,000 per wedding. (I don’t know about you, but my wife and I spent a LOT less!) These “marriages” (which have yet to meet financial expectations in other states) may make a fast buck in the short term, but they will do nothing but drain the economy down the road. Consider the massive health care expenses incurred by taxpayers every year to cope with the diseases spread by homosexual behavior. According to the Kaiser Foundation, federal funding grew to more than $18 billion in 2004 to deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Over half of all U.S. infections are in men having sex with men! That means taxpayers spend roughly $10 billion a year treating the diseases caused by a behavior celebrated in same-sex “marriage.” So much for economic development!

Meanwhile, the bigger question is: where has Congress been on all of this? So far both the House and Senate, which are responsible for D.C. oversight, have refused to address the city’s direct assault on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). By sitting on their hands, they’re now complicit with a movement that could roll back the definition of marriage in states where voters have won the battle to enshrine marriage in their constitutions. We expected better from Congress. And as voters, we deserve better.


Education’s “Remote” Control

In one of his first public appearances since the controversy over his appointment, “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings came out of hiding to address a group of teachers yesterday at the National Press Club. Later, when CNS News pressed him about the Hill’s campaign to fire him, Jennings refused to answer. He did, however, respond to a question about the role of the federal government in promoting homosexuality. “The federal government is not allowed to dictate any curriculum of any kind about any subject, whether it’s history, math, science, health, education, so forth and so on, because Congress has laid out very clear rules that they want curriculum decisions made at the state and local level… [T]he federal government doesn’t [dictate] in any area,” he said.

Does Jennings really expect us to believe that the Department of Education, an agency with a budget of roughly $48 billion, has limited authority? As FRC pointed out in a recent Washington Times op-ed, that doesn’t include the additional $33 billion that President Obama requested in the so-called “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” With those purse strings–and a massive web of federal bureaucracy–it’s difficult to swallow Jennings’s claim that Washington has little influence on our children’s classrooms. On the contrary, it has too much! And so does Jennings. Log on to our website to learn more about this czar’s checkered past and to lend your voice to the 54 congressmen who are calling for his removal.

http://www.frc.org/

Founder’s Quote Daily

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

Founder's Quote Daily

“Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

–James Madison, Federalist No. 55

LifeNews.com Headlines: March 11, 2010

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

SENATE REPUBLICANS WON’T LET DEMOCRATS USE ABORTION TO PASS HEALTH CARE BILL
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – If Democrats in Congress think they can rely on an appeasement strategy on abortion to pass the health care bill through the Senate via reconciliation, Senate Republicans say they are misled. In the latest turn of events in the ongoing abortion-health care debate, Senate Republicans have upped the ante.

DEMOCRATS TAKE ISSUE WITH MARCH 18 DATE FOR PRO-ABORTION HEALTH CARE VOTE
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A dustup took place yesterday on Capitol Hill as a top Democratic leader took issue with President Barack Obama’s spokesman over the projected date for the House vote on the Senate health care bill. Now, more Democrats are revolting against what they see as a White House mandate for a vote date.


WHITE HOUSE FAITH COUNCIL RELEASES FINAL REPORT, NO PLAN TO REDUCE ABORTIONS
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – The White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships presented its policy recommendations to President Barack Obama. The plan failed to include any proposals on reducing abortions or helping pregnant women find abortion alternatives.

CATHOLIC BISHOPS: POLITICO WRONG, DON’T BACK HEALTH CARE WITH ABORTION FUND BAN
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A new reports earlier this week in the political web site Politico caused a stir in the pro-life movement. Politico’s report made it appear the nation’s Catholic bishops would lend their voice to the Senate health care bill should its provisions funding abortion be removed.


PRO-ABORTION GROUPS SEND CONGRESS LETTER, DEMAND MORE ABORTION FUNDING IN BILL
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Abortion advocates are not content with the massive abortion funding and promotion of abortion in the Senate health care bill the House may soon consider. More than 50 groups that back abortion combined forces for a new letter to members of Congress demanding more.


PRO-LIFE DEMOCRATS JOE DONNELLY, DALE KILDEE OPPOSE PRO-ABORTION HEALTH CARE
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Two key pro-life Democrats in the House whose votes could determine the fate of the pro-abortion Senate health care bill have come down on different sides. While Rep. Joe Donnelly of New York says he will vote no because of the abortion funding, Michigan’s Dale Kildee is a yes vote.

NATIONAL DAY OF APPRECIATION OF ABORTION PROVIDERS IGNORES HURTING, KILLING WOMEN
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Today is National Day of Appreciation of Abortion Providers, the annual celebration by pro-abortion activists of abortion practitioners. Groups like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU sent their members messages today honoring abortion practitioners but they ignored how they have killed and injured women.

Mitt Romney Says He Was Never Pro-Choice on Abortion as Mass Governor

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe
By Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor, March 10, 2010


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — Mitt Romney is likely one of several Republican candidates who will vie for the GOP nomination and the right to take on pro-abortion President Barack Obama. For his 2008 attempt at representing Republicans, Romney caused consternation by talking about his position change on abortion and he is doing it again.

Appearing on the “Imus in the Morning” radio program with Don Imus this morning, Imus asked Romney to revisit his position change.

“Well, you know, I never really called myself pro-choice, but I did say when I was running for governor that I would keep the law as it was,” Romney said.

But that appears to contradict what he said at the 2007 GOP Iowa straw poll debate.


“Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. I changed my position. And I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they’ve been pro-life longer than I have,” he said then.

American Spectator writer W. James Antle noticed the Imus comment and said Romney could hurt his own chances of getting the nomination in 2012 by revisiting his former position in favor of legal abortions.

“Romney’s problem has never really been that he changed his mind. It has been the fact that he can’t resist insulting people’s intelligence about his past record when discussing his current position,” Antle writes. Continue reading →

Day 20 of 40 Days: 209 Babies Saved from AbortionDay 20 of 40 Days: 209 Babies Saved from Abortion

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

Commentary by David Bereit, National Coordinator, 40 Days for Life, March 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com

I just returned home from Oklahoma. Early tomorrow morning I’ll be back on a plane, this time heading to California, where I’ll get to visit several more 40 Days for Life campaigns.

In between flights, praying at vigils, speaking at events, long road trips, and short nights of sleep, whenever I check e-mail, my inbox is overflowing with more reports of lives saved.


I still think it’s a miracle any time 40 Days for Life prayer vigil participants are blessed with the knowledge that a mother has changed her mind about aborting a child. And today, as we reach the halfway point of this campaign — it’s already happened … 209 times that we know of! That’s 102 more lives spared — over the last week.


Here are just a few of those miracles:


JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA: A woman and her daughter spent about an hour in the parking lot at the abortion center, entering and leaving the business several times. Finally, they drove out of the lot. The young woman rolled down her window and said, “I am not going to have an abortion.”

“We were there at the critical time,” said Trudy in Jacksonville. “We were there at the entrance of the driveway, offering her hope in her desperate situation.


“She saw strangers praying for her; she saw signs that gave her options; she experienced the ultimate, unconditional love from people whom she may never see again in this world. And her miraculous decision gave us peace and joy this world can not give!”


YAKIMA, WASHINGTON: A 40 Days for Life participant described his boss as “a good Christian man,” so it shocked him when his boss said his 16-year-old daughter was pregnant and planning to have an abortion. So, the man just prayed harder.


Two weeks later, his boss returned to say that when his daughter went to Planned Parenthood for her abortion, prayer volunteers convinced her not to go through with it. She went to a pro-life resource center instead.

Continue reading →

Day 20 of 40 Days: 209 Babies Saved from Abortion

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

Commentary by David Bereit, National Coordinator, 40 Days for Life, March 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com

I just returned home from Oklahoma. Early tomorrow morning I’ll be back on a plane, this time heading to California, where I’ll get to visit several more 40 Days for Life campaigns.

In between flights, praying at vigils, speaking at events, long road trips, and short nights of sleep, whenever I check e-mail, my inbox is overflowing with more reports of lives saved.

I still think it’s a miracle any time 40 Days for Life prayer vigil participants are blessed with the knowledge that a mother has changed her mind about aborting a child. And today, as we reach the halfway point of this campaign — it’s already happened … 209 times that we know of! That’s 102 more lives spared — over the last week.

Here are just a few of those miracles:

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA: A woman and her daughter spent about an hour in the parking lot at the abortion center, entering and leaving the business several times. Finally, they drove out of the lot. The young woman rolled down her window and said, “I am not going to have an abortion.”

“We were there at the critical time,” said Trudy in Jacksonville. “We were there at the entrance of the driveway, offering her hope in her desperate situation.

“She saw strangers praying for her; she saw signs that gave her options; she experienced the ultimate, unconditional love from people whom she may never see again in this world. And her miraculous decision gave us peace and joy this world can not give!” Continue reading →

GOSPEL & MEDITATION: Jesus or Satan

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe
Father Daniel Polzer, LC
Luke 11:14-23

Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute, and when the demon had gone out, the mute person spoke and the crowds were amazed. Some of them said, “By the power of Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he drives out demons.” Others, to test him, asked him for a sign from heaven. But he knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste and house will fall against house. And if Satan is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that it is by Beelzebub that I drive out demons. If I, then, drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your own people drive them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the finger of God that I drive out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you. When a strong man fully armed guards his palace, his possessions are safe. But when one stronger than he attacks and overcomes him, he takes away the armor on which he relied and distributes the spoils. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”


Introductory Prayer: Lord Jesus, as I prepare for Easter during this Lenten season, I turn to you once again in prayer. I wish to see you with the eyes of faith. I wish to welcome the salvation you came to give me and to accept it with a humble heart. Now, during this time of prayer, I want to give everything over to you so that your love and truth may direct my life.


Petition:Lord, help me to accept with simple faith the reality of who you are.


1. All for God’s Glory When Christ works this simple miracle, the crowds are amazed. They are amazed at what Christ has done, but surely they were also amazed at what the mute person said. We do not know what was said, but it is likely that they were words that glorified God in thanksgiving for his miracle. The freedom that Christ brings by loosening the tongue of the mute person is so that creation can glorify God its creator. When Jesus frees the mute person from Satan – who does not want God to be glorified and who wants to keep mankind in the chains of sin, it is so that God will be glorified. In my life, do I seek to glorify God for the wonders of his creation and all the good things he has done for me?


2. Truth or Lies Jesus’ enemies could not deny the miracle he had just worked, but instead of accepting his power to drive out evil spirits, they came up with an accusation that it was Beelzebub who caused the miracle. Their envy gets the best of their common sense. Envy always tries to find a way around the truth. It asks for a sign or proposes a false accusation. Jesus counters envy’s contorted reasoning with simple straightforward logic: “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste and house will fall against house.” It cannot be by the Beelzebub’s power that he drives out demons because that would mean Beelzebub is driving out his own demons. Simple logic shows that this is not so. Does my own faith help me to differentiate between lies that I hear and the truth?


3. Jesus Challenges Satan’s Reign The strong man that Jesus speaks of is the devil. He has kept mankind under his control since Adam and Eve’s fall. He has had nothing to worry about up to now because he has been the strong man able to defend from all comers his prize of corrupted human nature. But Jesus is stronger, and he has come to attack the devil and win back from him what he has taken. He takes away his armor of evil, hate, anger, lust and egoism. He redeems mankind from the clutches of the evil one. Can I truly say that I set my faith in God and that he truly brings about good despite the natural calamities or bad intentions and actions of others, including the devil himself?


Conversation with Christ: Lord, help me to accept your miracles in my life so that my life will give you glory in my actions, words and thoughts. Do not let me be blind to the force of your love in the world. I know you are stronger than Satan. I want to be in your camp. I want to be rescued from the clutches of sin by the omnipotence of your love.


Resolution: When I am faced with a temptation, I will call to mind that Jesus is stronger than Satan and he can give me the strength to reject the temptation.

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

TODAY’S SAINT: ST. AUREA

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe
CATHOLIC NEWS AGENYC, MARCH 11, 2010

St. Aurea was born around the year 1042 in the village of Villavelayo, Spain, in a region controlled by Moors. As a youth, Aurea studied the Scriptures and the lives of the early martyrs of the Church. Her favorite saints to meditate upon and try to copy were Agatha, Eulalia and Cecilia.

As a young woman, Aurea decided to leave home and join a religious convent. She was welcomed into the convent of San Millan de la Cogolla and completely applied herself to monastic life. Soon after joining the convent, Aurea received a vision of her three favorite saints and was encouraged to follow her chosen lifestyle with more zeal. God used St. Aurea to work many miracles and many people began to seek her advice and prayers.

Aurea spent only a few years of her life in the monastery. Around the year 1069 she contracted a painful disease and died. At the time of her death, Aurea was twenty-seven years old.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=174

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

Published March 11, 2010 | By scribe

Categories

Archives

Meta

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Copyright © 2011. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by WordPress and WordPress Theme created with Artisteer by Jason Stern.