Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana

It is not the sort of get-up you’d expect the Pope to sport.

But Pope Benedict XVI broke with tradition by wearing a baseball cap as he went for a stroll around his summer residence on Sunday.

The 83-year-old even colour-coordinated his new cap, perhaps mindful of the need for it to blend in with his white robe and white hair.

Pope Benedict donned the trendy hat as he walked around his estate in Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome.

The cap also served the more useful purpose of keeping the hot summer sun off the Pope’s head.

The move isn’t the first time that the Vatican has broken with tradition this week.

It emerged at the weekend that officials have decided not to fly the Pope home to Italy on British Airways at the end of his state visit to the UK this autumn.

The decision is due, in part, to the threat of BA strikes.

It has become customary for the Pope to return home from official visits on the flag carrier of the country he has toured.

But Pope Benedict will instead fly from Rome to Britain and back on an Airbus A320 operated by Italian state airline Alitalia.

One factor understood to have concerned Roman Catholic officials was the BA cabin crew strikes, which threaten to restart in September when the visit takes place.

The Vatican is determined nothing should detract from the four-day trip, the first state visit by a Pope to Britain.

He will meet the Queen in Scotland before visiting London and Birmingham.

British Airways was asked earlier this year to provide a quote to charter a 747 jet to fly the Pope back to Rome.

A BA source said it offered a quote at ‘commercial rates’, but heard no more from the Church.

Airline officials assumed the Vatican had been given a cheaper quote by a rival.

Vatican sources, however, claim Church officials in the UK tried to contact BA again to discuss the details but received no response.

Liberty

“Like the Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, conservatives believe that our rights as human beings come from God. They do not come the state or the ruling class. If the state can grant rights to you — civil rights, parental rights, or any others, they can take them away. Ask residents of the former Soviet Union what is was like to have no rights and that they only existed at the whim of the ruling party. When the government gets in the business of granting rights or dispensing charitable deeds, it does it on the premise that it knows what is best. Thus, the bureaucracy, the government institution, not the individual, will determine who is worthy of receiving those funds. And when an institution becomes self-perpetuating the people become secondary. Thus, the ultimate goal is to shrink the independence of men and women, but enlarge their dependence on government. … The fundamental principle of conservatism is freedom.”

–columnists Diana Banister and Craig Shirley

The Gipper

“The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation. I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation’s highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it.”
–Ronald Reagan

“My soul, why do you face about and follow the lead of the flesh? Turn forward, and let it follow you!”

…Science tells us that the human brain reaches its maximum potential in early adulthood. Why then are young adults so seldom capable of doing what people with more years of experience can do? . . . Because experience trumps brilliance….

Thomas Sowell, National Review Online, July 27, 2010

Many of the wonderful-sounding ideas that have been tried as government policies have failed disastrously. Because so few people bother to study history, often the same ideas and policies have been tried again, either in another country or in the same country at a later time — and with the same disastrous results.

One of the ideas that has proved to be almost impervious to evidence is the idea that wise and far-sighted people need to take control, and plan economic and social policies so that there will be a rational and just order, rather than chaos resulting from things being allowed to take their own course. It sounds so logical and plausible that demanding hard evidence would seem almost like nit-picking.

In one form or another, this idea goes back at least as far as the French Revolution in the 18th century. As J. A. Schumpeter later wrote of that era, “General well-being ought to have been the consequence,” but “instead we find misery, shame and, at the end of it all, a stream of blood.”

The same could be said of the Bolshevik Revolution and other 20th-century revolutions.

The idea that the wise and knowledgeable few need to take control of the less wise and less knowledgeable many has taken milder forms — and repeatedly with bad results as well.

One of the most easily documented examples has been economic central planning, which was tried in countries around the world at various times during the 20th century, among people of differing races and cultures, and under governments ranging from democracies to dictatorships.

The people who ran central planning agencies usually had more advanced education than the population at large, and probably higher IQs as well.

The central planners also had far more statistics and other facts at their disposal than the average person had. Moreover, there were usually specialized experts such as economists and statisticians on the staffs of the central planners, and outside consultants were available when needed. Finally, the central planners had the power of government behind them to enforce the plans they created.

It is hardly surprising that conservatives, such as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Pres. Ronald Reagan in the United States, opposed this approach. What is remarkable is that, after a few decades of experience with central planning in some countries, or a few generations in others, even Communists and socialists began to repudiate this approach.

As liberals replaced central planning with more reliance on markets, their countries’ economic-growth rates almost invariably increased, often dramatically. In the largest and most recent examples — China and India — people by the millions have risen above these countries’ official poverty rates, after they freed their economies from many of their suffocating government controls.

China, where famines have repeatedly ravaged the country, now has a problem of obesity — not a good thing in itself, but a big improvement over famines.

This has implications far beyond economics. Think about it: How was it even possible that transferring decisions from elites with more education, intellect, data, and power to ordinary people could lead consistently to demonstrably better results?

One implication is that no one is smart enough to carry out social engineering, whether in the economy or in other areas where the results may not always be so easily quantifiable. We learn, not from our initial brilliance, but from trial-and-error adjustments to events as they unfold.

Science tells us that the human brain reaches its maximum potential in early adulthood. Why then are young adults so seldom capable of doing what people with more years of experience can do?

Because experience trumps brilliance.

Elites may have more brilliance, but those who make decisions for society as a whole cannot possibly have as much experience as the millions of people whose decisions they preempt. The education and intellects of the elites may lead them to have more sweeping presumptions, but that just makes them more dangerous to the freedom, as well as to the well-being, of the people as a whole.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

http://article.nationalreview.com/438688/how-smart-are-we/thomas-sowell

June 09, 2009

Obama: “Remaking America” – The Presidents CZARS breaking the Constitution – ACORN Rules

The rule of law is gone, congressional oversight is gone, and soon private investment will be gone. So where will that leave us? It will leave us just exactly where the Obama Administration wants us, dependent on the government for everything………..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKj8piIuH6o&NR=1

Obama: “Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America”

…The term czar has come to mean a presidential crony appointee who was never vetted by the Senate and who exercises sweeping regulatory authority without congressional oversight. But let’s not lose sight of the vastly increased regulations issued by established agencies….

Phyllis Schlafly, Townhall, July 27, 2010

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2010/07/27/more_unaccountable_obama_czars#

David Mills, First Things, July 27, 2010

Something two years old but which I just came across and post for those interested: The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing, a report claiming that these problems cost taxpayers a huge amount of money, much of which could be saved by programs supporting marriage. According to the executive summary:

President claims he can relate to Americans’ economic struggles

WATCH VIDEO: http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-my-finances-have-suffered-too/

Today’s video highlight’s Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) as he talks about the abortion provision in the Defense Authorization bill and how he is leading the effort to oppose it. Click on the screencap below to hear this important discussion.

Representative Akin Discusses Plan to Force Military Hospitals to Peform Abortions

Q: “Do you think this will also lead to military hospitals being forced to perform sex change operations at taxpayer expense?”

The 1993 law which bars homosexuals from serving in the military does not say anything explicitly about “gender identity”–which, along with “transgender,” is the politically correct term which covers cross-dressing, sex-change surgery, and “drag queens or kings.” The current amendment to the pending Defense Authorization bill which would overturn the 1993 law also says nothing about “gender identity.” However, the same activists who are pushing to allow open homosexuals in the military have also declared that they support “the right of transgenders to serve openly.”

Under current rules, however, a person who has had genital surgery would be medically ineligible to join the military, and a person who identifies as “transgender” would be rejected on mental health grounds. A currently serving member who cross-dresses would be in violation of dress and grooming standards, and a person who sought sex-change surgery could be discharged. However, transgender activists have said, “The military will need to update its understanding of the medical and mental health treatment of transgender people.” While overturning the current law on homosexuality in the armed forces would not lead immediately to taxpayer-funded sex changes, it would put us on a slippery slope which could very well lead to that result in the future.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU10G15&f=PG07J01

“If I want to murder my fetus,
it ain’t nobody’s business but my own.”

~Pro-abort commenter Jenna, on Stanek Post: Are Pro-Life going to adopt all unwanted babies?, July 25

http://www.jillstanek.com/quote/2010/07/quote-of-the-day-7-26-2010.html

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

You shaped me first inside, then out;
you formed me in my mother’s womb.
Psalm 139:13

Catholic Online, July 27, 2010

Sacred ground is more easily understood by European Christians than their American counterparts. Some events are so catastrophic, or prove to be so historically significant, that they transcend the categories we normally employ to explain them. These events must  reference something higher to make sense to us.
Full Story

By Jason Mattera, Human Events, 07/26/2010

Courtesy of our friend, Riehl World View: “Rev.” Charles Sherrod sounds off on whitey and those darned Uncle Toms!

Mr. Mattera is the editor of HUMAN EVENTS and the author of Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation (Simon & Schuster).

Public confidence in Congress has plummeted to the lowest level of any institution since Gallup began asking the question in 1973. One-half of all Americans have little or no confidence in the Congress.

Not only is this bad news for the Democratic Party this fall, it is reflective of the disdain if not contempt in which the nation’s political class is held by those they govern. Three times as many Americans have confidence in the Supreme Court as have in Congress.

And though Obama has been through a rough patch, three times as many Americans retain confidence in his office as have confidence in the Congress. Even when Bush was at his nadir, in 2008, 26 percent professed a high level of confidence in the presidency, more than twice those who today have confidence in the institution led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Only three institutions of the 16 have the solid confidence of the nation with more than 50 percent saying they have high confidence or a lot of confidence in them: the military at 76 percent, down from 82 percent a year ago, small business at 66 percent and the police at 58 percent.

All three institutions tend to be male-dominated, conservative and hierarchical. Two of the three feature men with guns — the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who defend us from foreign enemies, and the thin blue line that defends us from the predators at home. Americans have a far greater appreciation of those who risk their lives to defend our country than for those who write its laws.
Continue reading →

Josh Groban singing “O Holy Night” at the Christmas tree lighting ceremony at the Rockefeller Center in NYC on December 4, 2002

By Peter J. Smith, July 26, 2010, LifeSiteNews.com

TRENTON, New Jersey – As New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie continues to fulfill a campaign pledge to restore state government to fiscal sanity, he has vetoed a bill that would have dedicated $7.5 million in state to “family planning” clinics, most of which are run by Planned Parenthood.

New Jersey’s Star Ledger reported that Christie in his veto message said that “the state simply cannot fund every worthy program” and would not restore $7.5 million for family planning clinics that he had cut from the state’s budget for fiscal year 2011.

Marie Tasy, executive director of New Jersey Right to Life, praised Christie for standing by his decision to cut funds for Planned Parenthood.

“The taxpayers of New Jersey are under no obligation to fund the radical and failed social agenda of Planned Parenthood,’’ said Marie Tasy, according to the Star-Ledger. “We commend Governor Christie for his steadfast opposition to restoring these funds.”

Christie issued the veto along with vetoes of two bills that would have established a $100 million tax credit program for new homebuyers, and redirected government funds to enroll 39,000 low-income individuals in the state’s subsidized health insurance program.

“State spending has been reset to levels the taxpayers can afford,” said Christie in a stern message to the legislature. “Supplemental spending that would return to the unchecked spending and out of control budget shortfalls of the past will not make it past the Governor’s desk.”

Reports indicate that the Democrat-controlled Legislature may seek to mount a veto-override.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10072606.html

…The bill has been condemned by National Right to Life Committee as “a blatant political attack on the First Amendment rights of NRLC, our state affiliates, and our members and donors.”….

By Peter J. Smith, June 24, 2010, LifeSiteNews.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Democrat-controlled Senate will have its first vote Tuesday on a campaign finance disclosure bill bilaterally condemned as a critical blow to grassroots political voices, and one that could prove especially disabling to the pro-life movement.

The Democrat-controlled Senate began debate Monday on the “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act” (S.3628), and is expected to attempt its first cloture vote on Tuesday. The House passed its version of the bill in June.

To achieve a vote for cloture to end debate, Democrats would need “yes” votes from every member of their caucus, and at least one GOP member. Democrats have targeted Maine’s moderate GOP Senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, by making minor modifications to the bill from the House version (HR 5175). However, neither has offered public support.

In addition, Politico reports that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Majority Whip and the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, would not confirm whether he had succeeded in getting every Democrat on board with the DISCLOSE Act, and that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) may be undecided on the measure.

NRLC’s Legislative Director Douglas Johnson told LifeSiteNews.com by telephone that the bill has not changed in any way that relates to his group’s original objections of the House version. NRLC sent a detailed letter to the Senate strongly opposing the measure, warning that a vote for cloture would count against them on NRLC’s legislative scorecard.

Johnson expected the GOP to oppose the bill vigorously since it “is so blatantly partisan and egregiously offensive to the First Amendment.” “The bill would substantially reduce the amount of information reaching the public about what federal office holders are doing about pro-life issues,” said Johnson.

The DISCLOSE Act would force grassroots organizations – including most 501(c)4, 501(c)5, 501(c)6, and 527 groups – to list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Groups must also post a hyperlink on their website to the FEC, where a list of the names of their donors can be accessed.

The bill requires that every time an organization runs a campaign ad, its CEO must appear in the ad and twice state his name and the organization’s name. The top five funders of the organization behind the ad – even if they had nothing to do with the ad’s funding – must also have their names listed in the ad.  In addition, the most “significant” donor to the organization must list his name, rank, and organization three times in the ad.

Opponents of the bill say it would frustrate the ability of grassroots entities to communicate effectively with the public about public policy, and level criticism against incumbents. The disclaimer rule has been singled out for criticism by those who say the requirement would devour valuable airtime that would otherwise be used to inform voters about a candidate’s record.

“We are all familiar with foreign governments that jam radio broadcasts from disfavored political parties,” said Johnson. ”What we have here is a bill requiring by force of law that we jam our own broadcasts.”

The DISCLOSE Act exempts large 501(c)4 groups – like the 4 million strong NRA and 750,000 member Sierra Club – from having to report their donors if they have at least 500,000 members, over 10 years of existence, chapters in all 50 states, and if they receive no more than 15% of total contributions from corporations.

The bill has been condemned by National Right to Life Committee as “a blatant political attack on the First Amendment rights of NRLC, our state affiliates, and our members and donors.”

Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) decried the bill as a threat to free speech and free participation in the political process.

Should the DISCLOSE Act be approved by the Senate and signed by President Obama, it would take effect in 30 days, even if the Federal Elections Commission has not yet crafted new guidelines – just in time for the mid-term elections in November.

Other affected entities under the bill will likely include vocal liberal and conservative groups that communicate through the Internet. While traditional media organizations like newspapers and television stations are exempt from the bill, bloggers, the vanguard of the “new media,” are not.

For contact information for the U.S. Senate, click here.

See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

House Passes DISCLOSE Act: Pro-Life/Grassroots Muzzle Bill Goes to Senate
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10062411.html

Breaking: House Dems Preparing Thursday DISCLOSE Act Vote to Muzzle Pro-life, Pro-family Groups
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10062313.html

Congress to Vote on DISCLOSE Act – Condemned by Pro-Life, Pro-Family Groups
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10061707.html

July 26, 2010

WATCH ONLINE: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/43474/

You may be tired, but you have to remain involved, do not give up and keep moving forward!

“This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them.”

—Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788

We think of bombs as large things, massive things, things that destroy. Well, THE BOMB which killed the west is very small, very tiny – but it certainly destroys! Watch this video to learn more and share it with your friends and family.

One small little invention has totally altered the social and cultural fabric. It was THE BOMB that destroyed the West.

To view online: http://www.realcatholictv.com/free/index.php?vidID=vort-2010-07-26

This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

July 27, 2010
Tuesday of the Seventeenth Week in Ordinary Time
Father Ernest Daly, LC

Matthew 13: 36-43

Jesus dismissed the crowds and went into the house. His disciples approached him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” He said in reply, “He who sows good seed is the Son of Man, the field is the world, the good seed the children of the Kingdom. The weeds are the children of the Evil One, and the enemy who sows them is the Devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. Just as weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his Kingdom all who cause others to sin and all evildoers. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears ought to hear.”

Introductory Prayer: Lord, thank you for this new day. I believe that you are present in my heart. I believe that you want to give me your wisdom to live this life fruitfully. I trust that your mercy will protect me as I struggle against evil. I love you because you have overcome evil by your cross and resurrection. I want to live this moment of prayer as an intense moment to be transformed by you.

Petition: Lord, help me to look forward to your triumph with hope.

1. He is Watching Us The difference between good and evil is not lost for God. He knows the struggles we have to live goodness in this world that is often so impregnated with evil. He assures us that he sees the good that is done and will give recompense for it. I should strive to live each day knowing that I am seen by God and consistently try to sow goodness in my life.

2. The Limit of Evil When sometimes it seems like evil can triumph in the world, we need to recognize that God has the last say over evil. He mysteriously allows evil to exist so that good can become purified. There will be a moment when evil will be judged and will no longer have power over our lives. If we have sowed goodness with our lives and if we are living in God’s grace, he will free us from the domain of evil forever. Let us build up our confidence in the coming of his kingdom. Let us use the struggle against evil as a way to show the sincerity of our love.

3. We Reap What We Sow The assurance of Christ that there will be a final judgment gives Christians both soberness and joy in living their lives. We know our efforts are not in vain. We realize that this life is the short opportunity the Father gives us to do good and prepare for our great destiny with him. When I am tempted to lose patience in the fight, I must remember that the struggles will soon be over, and God will more than recompense for the sacrifices I have made in following his will and promoting goodness in the world.

Conversation with Christ: Lord, I believe that you are in charge of my life. I renew my trust in the triumph of your holiness in my life. When I feel the pull of evil in my heart, I will remember that this life is short and that my struggle is precious in your eyes. Help me to keep my eyes on the happiness you are preparing for me.

Resolution: I will speak about the joy of receiving the sacrament of reconciliation with someone I meet today, planting in that person’s heart the seed of the desire to receive this sacrament.

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

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, JULY 27, 2010

St. Panteleon is the patron saint of bachelors and physicians. A lifelong layperson and single person, he was the physician to the emperor Maximian. At one point, he had abandoned his faith, but he eventually returned to the Church, giving his fortune to the poor and treating them medically without charge. Some of his cures were accomplished by prayer.

Other physicians eventually denounced him to the anti-Christian authorities. At his trial, he offered a contest between himself and the pagan priests. He challenged the pagan priests to heal a paralyzed man with their prayers, but they were unable. Pantaleon cured the man by simply mentioning the name of Jesus. As a result, many of those who witnessed the miracle converted.

The authorities remained resolute in trying to get him to denounce his faith with bribes, threat and torture, but they did not succeed. He was then nailed to a tree and beheaded in c.305.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=548