A conservative activist and former presidential candidate says it’s an absolute outrage that in the height of a recession and huge government deficits, U.S. taxpayers will soon be footing the bill for rebuilding Islamic mosques in foreign countries.

According to The Associated Press, the Obama administration plans to spend nearly $6 million in American tax dollars to restore 63 historic and cultural sites around the world, including mosques and minarets in 55 countries. The projects include $76,000 for a 16th century mosque in communist China, $67,000 for a mosque in Pakistan, and numerous others.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls using U.S. taxpayer dollars to restore Islamic and other cultural sites money well spent. But Gary Bauer, chairman of American Values, does not see it that way.

“This is unacceptable,” he continues. “The United States taxpayer should not have their hard-earned money going to build mosques and minarets in China, in Pakistan, and other places around the world. It’s unconstitutional, and it needs to stop immediately”

In a related poll of more than 14,000 OneNewsNow readers, almost 48 percent of respondents said “someone should be making noise about separation of church and state” — essentially echoing Bauer’s comment about the ACLU. Another 40 percent agreed that “playing nice-guy with the Muslim world is a losing proposition.”

Bauer considers the plan just another reason why Americans need to vote a different Congress in come November.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=1138776

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON — Behind the anger over the Arizona immigration mess, the Ground Zero mosque, the economy, and the new directions in foreign policy are some recurring general themes that reverberate in each particular new controversy… (more)

Obama: “I Can’t Spend All Of My Time With My Birth Certificate Plastered On My Forehead”

AP: President Barack Obama says he isn’t worried about a recent poll showing that nearly one-fifth of Americans believe he is a Muslim.

Obama, who is a Christian, says “the facts are the facts.” In an interview broadcast Sunday on “NBC Nightly News,” the president blamed the confusion over his religious beliefs on “a network of misinformation.”

Russell Shaw, Inside Catholic, August 27, 2010

Two men wearing tennis whites walk out on the court. Opening a folding table and chairs, they sit down and start to play chess. An attendant rushes up and says, “Sorry, gentlemen, this place is for tennis. You can’t do that here.” Looking up with a scowl, one of the men snaps, “This is how we play tennis. We have a right.”

This is a parable of same-sex marriage and the controversy that accompanies it. On one side: Whatever else it is, it just isn’t marriage. On the other: To us it’s marriage, and we have a right.

Traditionalists not uncommonly see here the collapse of morality. That’s wrong. The advocacy of gay marriage doesn’t reflect a collapse of morality; it represents emergence of a new version of morality that is now locked in a fierce struggle — in courts, in legislatures, and in the court of public opinion — with the older version.

This new morality is a form of libertarianism (people have a right to do as they please) whose fundamental principle is a simplistic idea of fairness (if you can do it, so can I). I learned about libertarian fairness many years ago as a father of small children, whose ultimate argument upon being denied something they wanted invariably was, “It isn’t fair.”

Childish it may be, but it resonates with baby-boomers and members of Generation X, to say nothing of today’s kids. Nearly all of them have been steeped in the conviction that fairness is the all-but-exclusive norm of morality, and fairness means giving everybody what he or she wants — especially if it’s something that somebody else already has.

A federal district judge in San Francisco has recently ruled that California’s Proposition 8, defining legal marriage in that state as a relationship between a man and a woman, violates the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. Proposition 8, adopted by California voters two years ago after the state supreme court had legalized same-sex marriage, clashes with “the state’s interest in equality,” said Judge Vaughn Walker. In other words, it isn’t fair.

The case now goes to the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Regardless of what happens there, the ruling almost certainly will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. With its present membership, the Supreme Court probably divides 4-4-1 on same-sex marriage — four justices in favor of legalization, four justices opposed, and, as so often, Anthony Kennedy the swing vote.

It’s not unreasonable to suppose that President Barack Obama’s two Supreme Court picks, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, are among the four justices in favor. People who oppose same-sex marriage would be well advised to pray for long life and good health for Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

On the other hand, proponents of same-sex marriage are said to fear that too sweeping a victory too soon — such as a decision on the order of Judge Walker’s hubristic reading of the Constitution — could produce results like those of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision in which the Supreme Court abruptly imposed legalized abortion on the entire country.

As matters now stand, 30 states limit legal marriage to man-woman unions; five states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex unions as marriages. Across-the-board legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court in one swoop might generate a lasting backlash and energize the culture war.

One often hears it said that public opinion is shifting in favor of same-sex marriage, and there’s evidence that it is. Although 52 percent of California voters two years ago backed Proposition 8, a recent poll found that 51 percent of Californians support gay marriage now.

But this is hardly surprising, in view of the intense propagandizing for same-sex marriage in media and the academic world, and the squishiness in liberal religious sectors. Indeed, all things considered, it’s remarkable that that opposition remains as strong as it does in the face of constant repetition of the libertarian “fairness” argument combined with the firestorm of verbal abuse directed at those who disagree.

Since the rules of engagement in a pluralistic secular democracy don’t permit one to say simply that gay sex is a sin which the law shouldn’t encourage, the best argument against legalizing same-sex marriage is the harm done to traditional marriage.

No-fault divorce provides a precedent here. Changing the meaning of marriage to accommodate libertarian morality — which essentially is what happened in this case — contributed to the weakening of traditional marriage visible in statistics of recent decades.

Declaring “the trend lines are not healthy,” Allan Carlson, a scholar and advocate of traditional marriage, points out that between 1980 and 2007 the marriage rate (per 1,000 unmarried women) fell from 61.4 to 39.2 — a decline of 36 percent — while the absolute number of marriages fell from 2.39 million in 1980 to 2.16 million in 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry might nudge these figures up a bit, but no one imagines it will have that result for traditional marriage.

Approval of no-fault divorce didn’t produce these declines all by itself, any more than legalization of same-sex marriage would do. But in combination with other cultural factors, such experiments in redefining marriage plainly contribute to that result.

In his splendid new study of the thinking of John Paul II, Theology of the Body in Context (Pauline Books & Media), theologian William E. May writes that civil society “must respect the dignity of marriage and the family and refuse to dignify as ‘marriage’ and accord the same rights to nonmarital unions.” And because no society can afford to be permissive about something as fundamental as marriage and family, he insists, the Church is obliged to speak up in their defense.

Indeed yes. But in speaking up, expect to hear someone on the other side growl, “It isn’t fair.” Think of those guys playing chess on the tennis court.

http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/marriage-and-the-new-morality.html

SOURCE:  JILL STANEK

I was on a conference call Wednesday re: a federal judge’s decision earlier in the week that the Obama administration broke the law by authorizing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Someone on the call mentioned Democrats are excited to make escr a rallying cry for autumn, thinking finally they have an election issue the public supports. Indeed, according to Science Insider, Democrat pro-death ringleader Rep. Diana DeGette is mulling several options.

But I wondered to myself whether the public is indeed still so supportive of taxpayer-funded escr. Times have changed. Everyone is now concerned with out-of-control government spending. How well will a call for more spending go?

And it has been 6 years since Californians foolishly approved Prop 71, providing $3 billion of their state taxes (borrowed, actually) for escr. What has the “vast promise” of escr netted since then? Nothing.

So today Rasmussen released findings from a new poll that is sure to make Democrats want to slit their wrists. My hunch was right. Support for taxpayer funded escr has waned – and considerably:

Only 33% of U.S. voters believe that taxpayer money should be spent on embryonic stem cell research, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) say funding for such research should be left to the private sector.

Key word: “voters.”Support for taxpayer-funded escr has plunged by 19% in only 17 months. The numbers have almost reversed:

In March of last year, 52% of all voters agreed with President Obama’s decision to lift the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, but 38% were opposed.

We shall see if these new poll numbers cause Dems to back away. I’m not confident. Ever since getting all the power almost 2 years ago Democrats have been unable to resist political poison.

http://www.jillstanek.com/2010/08/rassmussen-reports-stunning-reversal-57-of-voters-oppose-taxpayer-funded-embryonic-stem-cell-research/

Here are my top 5 most interesting (not necessarily favorite) political cartoons for the week.

As pro-lifers would expect, liberal satirists had a wildly spun and inaccurate field day with Federal  District Court Judge Royce Lamberth’s decision, based on the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, to block President Obama’s executive order authorizing federal tax spending for embryonic stem cell research. Winner of the worst: Pat Oliphant at GoComics…

Moving on, and related to our topic, a comparison of our country’s bygone days to darker times, by Dick Locher at GoComics.com…

Liberal cartoonists have also spent an inordinate amount of time the past 2 weeks attempting to paint Americans wondering whether Obama is a Muslim as well as a majority of same who oppose the building of a Mosque at Ground Zero as goons. But here’s the truth, by Chuck Asay at Townhall.com…

Finally, here were a couple cartoons that just made me laugh, the first by Mike Luckovich at GoComics.com…

and by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com…

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15906273

Radical Saul Alinsky’s influence grows from the grave . . . His admiration for the rebellious angel Lucifer sparked him to preface Rules for Radicals with praise for the devil….

By  Daniel J. Flynn, Human Events, 08/30/2010

The Saul Alinsky phase usually hits at age 21.

It was around that age that the current President vowed to take on Alinsky’s profession (community organizer) in Alinsky’s city (Chicago). His secretary of state reported to her professors that Alinsky “has been feared” because he “embraced the most radical of political faiths—democracy.” And at Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Memorial event this past weekend, many College Republicans in attendance no doubt will go back to their campuses and appropriate Alinsky’s tactics to their ends.

Nearly four decades after his death, Saul Alinsky is hotter than ever.

In Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinsky, Nicholas von Hoffman recounts a story of how the subject of his memoir once anonymously took a college examination on community organizing, wrongly answering two of three questions—on his own methods. If Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) couldn’t get himself right on a test, one can forgive von Hoffman for a book portrayal of his former boss that is often at odds with itself.

According to von Hoffman, Alinsky spent his life “tinkering with new ways to realize the old goal of democratic self-rule.” And according to von Hoffman, Alinsky stuffed organizational ballot boxes to affect the favored outcome.

The author quips, “We organized people to determine their own destinies except when we determined them.” That authoritarian spirit also animated the small group Alinsky headed. “Saul would joke about the [Industrial Areas Foundation] being a democratic organization in which he had one more vote than all the others combined.”

According to von Hoffman, Alinsky “was not a troublemaker for the hell of it.” And according to von Hoffman, Alinsky kept a framed picture of George Metesky, a lunatic who terrorized New York City with pipe bombs for over a decade, on his office wall. He professed Machiavelli an ethical yet practical democrat. His admiration for the rebellious angel Lucifer sparked him to preface Rules for Radicals with praise for the devil.

According to von Hoffman, Alinsky was “a man of great kindness.” And according to von Hoffman, Alinsky was a man of great hatreds. “There are some people I not only do not love but hate with a cold fury that would stop at nothing,” Alinsky wrote his philosopher friend Jacques Maritain. “I hate people who act unjustly and cause many to suffer. I become violently angry when I see misery and am filled with a bitter vindictiveness toward those responsible.”

According to von Hoffman, Alinsky was an “ethical teacher.” And according to von Hoffman, Alinsky’s associates were a motley crew of mobster murderers, corrupt prelates, and urban white racists.

Violence, Alinsky held, “was too touchy and to bring it up was to invite misquotation and distortion. In private, though, he would say that violence has its uses.” The author explains that Alinsky once led a goon squad to force Communists out of leadership positions in the United Mine Workers. Elsewhere, the “ethical teacher” Alinsky worked alongside Communists.

Alas, “Saul was amused by his own inconsistencies,” von Hoffman writes. Radical’s chaotic jumble of contradictions at times obscures, at times conveys the real Alinsky, whose protégé-biographer probably saw him here as kind, there as hateful.

This “least doctrinaire of men” found strength in ignoring the set script. He made up the story as he went along, confounding enemies as unscrupulous and alienating friends as unprincipled. Out for amusement, Alinsky bored easily and moved from project to project. He liked seeing his picture in the newspaper, loved the power trip of embarrassing powerful people, and reveled in outrageous stunts whether enacted or merely threatened.

Though the methods that brought him fame were transparently one dimensional, the less-discussed politics that motivated such methods were complex. Alinsky denigrated the Peace Corps as the “Piss Corps” and thought the Great Society would be more effective if the money had been handed out randomly on ghetto street corners.

“One of the reasons that Saul had a certain contempt for liberals or progressives and called himself a ‘radical’ was that he suspected liberals of being losers,” von Hoffman explains. “He shared with conservatives the feeling that liberals were soft, that they would buckle in a crisis and quit the field.”

Alinsky counseled his workers to stay out of jail, cut their hair, wear bourgeois clothing, and eschew idealistic ventures with little chance for victory. Upon publication of Rules for Radicals in 1971 a generous portion of those referring to themselves as “radicals” viewed Alinsky as a square.

Alinsky would have probably viewed a generous portion of those currently reading Rules for Radicals as “squares.” It is fitting that an amoral, unscrupulous man authored a book that has been seized upon by conservatives to rattle leftist congressmen at town halls and upend ACORN, (the closest thing to an Alinskyite establishment), through ridicule. Good strategy is an ideologically neutral commodity.

But it would be a shame if the obligatory rudeness, activism as catharsis, and situational ethics of the Alinsky model became a staple of the right-wing’s foot soldiers, too. If conservatives come to believe with Alinsky that ends justify means then it is not long before something as bassackwards as pushing liberalism to further conservatism will come to be rationalized—if that hasn’t happened already.

Then there is the question of the ultimate effectiveness of such tactics. Examples of Alinsky afflicting the comfortable are many. When did he ever comfort the afflicted?

Admirers are quick to cite the master’s influence on Cesar Chavez and, less directly so, on Barack Obama. And did you hear that Hillary Rodham wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky? Instances of Saul Alinsky effecting lasting positive change upon any community that he “organized” are not to be found in von Hoffman’s Radical—or anywhere else.

The hardnosed agitator bequeaths no permanent imprint on the South Side of Chicago or in blue-collar Rochester. Instead, he left his mark on library shelves, where Rules for Radicals thrives as an activist guidebook.

Hell for Saul Alinsky is that his legacy is primarily as a theorist rather than a man of action. That conservatives are utilizing his theories is ninth-circle stuff.

Mr. Flynn is the author of A Conservative History of the American Left (Crown Forum), and editor of www.flynnfiles.com.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38756

“He was certainly one of the most learned men of the age. It may be said of him as has been said of others that he was a ‘walking Library,’ and what can be said of but few such prodigies, that the Genius of Philosophy ever walked hand in hand with him.”

–James Madison, on Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Harrison Smith, 1826

August 30, 2010
Monday of the Twenty-second Week in Ordinary Time

Luke 4:16-30
Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had grown up, and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the passage where it was written: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord. Rolling up the scroll, he handed it back to the attendant and sat down, and the eyes of all in the synagogue looked intently at him. He said to them, “Today this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing.” And all spoke highly of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They also asked, “Isn´t this the son of Joseph?” He said to them, “Surely you will quote me this proverb, ´Physician, cure yourself,´ and say, ´Do here in your native place the things that we heard were done in Capernaum.´” And he said, “Amen, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own native place. Indeed, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah when the sky was closed for three and a half years and a severe famine spread over the entire land. It was to none of these that Elijah was sent, but only to a widow in Zarephath in the land of Sidon. Again, there were many lepers in Israel during the time of Elisha the prophet; yet not one of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” When the people in the synagogue heard this, they were all filled with fury. They rose up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town had been built, to hurl him down headlong. But he passed through the midst of them and went away.

Introductory Prayer: Lord, I love you and thank you for all that you have done for me. And yet, Lord, so many times I have plea-bargained with you and made my prayer conditional on receiving what I ask for. This time, Lord, I want to be completely open –– no strings attached. In this prayer I place myself completely at your disposal, confident of your good will and grace.

Petition: Lord, I welcome you into my soul. Help me to allow you to enter and rule over the house of my soul.

1. Speak Lord, Your Servant Is Listening As curious as it seems, our openness to a message often depends quite heavily on our openness to its messenger. Have you ever rejected somebody’s advice outright only to later embrace it when it comes from a different person? Have you disregarded a light from God because he revealed it to you through a person you would not have chosen, or even imagined God would have chosen? This is the common, simple error of the Nazarenes that Christ felt he had to point out to them. What has Christ been trying to tell me recently? Through whom? Am I ready to listen to him and allow him to use whatever messenger he may choose?

2. Open My Heart to Your Message Initially, the people of Nazareth in today’s Gospel seemed quite receptive to Christ’s message, his delivery, and his authority. What they couldn’t stomach was that they believed him just “one of them.” He would later prove himself “too much for them.” Surely they must have thought that he had forgotten his roots and that his Capernaum fame had gone to his head. But of course, the Nazarenes were neither the first nor the last to fall into the trap of focusing more on the messenger than on the message. This is precisely why Christ brought up the example of Naaman the Syrian, who was rewarded with a cure only after overcoming his rationalism and eating a bit of “humble pie.” (See his story in 2 Kings 5.) Has my hurt pride ever blinded me from listening to what Christ is desperately trying to tell me?

3. Lord, I Trust in You At one point in his public ministry, Christ would tell his listeners, “If you don’t believe the words that I speak, at least believe the works that I do” (cf. John 14:10-11). Why wouldn’t he at least give his own people from Nazareth the same advice and opportunity? Are a few miracles too much to waste on Nazarene soil? We must remember that faith is a gift. It is given and not bargained for or merited. On Calvary some would taunt him with a similar deal, “If you come down from the cross, then we will believe in you” (Cf. Mark 15:32). We must wonder from whom came the harder blow: from his accusers, or from “his own.” A proud demand is especially ugly and hurtful when it comes from a friend or loved-one.

Conversation with Christ: Jesus, I accept your invitation to come to the house of my soul. Help me to see the areas of my life in need of cleaning. Help me to see the areas of my life which prevent you from coming – those rooms that I close to you. Help me be humble enough to let your grace set to work in me.

Resolution: I will console Christ with a total and immediate trust in him and in his plan for my life today, whatever may come.

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

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY,  MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 2010

Jeanne Jugan, Foundress of the Little Sisters of the Poor

Three years after the French revolution had broken out, a baby girl was born whose name is known today all over the world.

Jeanne Jugan was born on October 25, 1792 in Cancale, a fishing port on the north coast of Brittany, France. Her father was absent at the time, for he sailed six months earlier for the fishing season in Newfoundland. According to parish registers of Cancale, she was baptized the same day in Saint Méen Church.

Less than four years later, Jeanne’s father was lost at sea.  At home, it was hard to make both ends meet. Jeanne, her brother and two sisters learned from their mother how to live poverty honestly and courageously with faith and love in God.

A servant and kitchen maid in a manor near Cancale, Jeanne was 18 when she refused a first marriage proposal. Six years later, she asked the young sailor who renewed his request to no longer think of her. “God wants me for Himself. He is keeping me for a work which is not yet known, for a work which is not yet founded,” she explained to her mother.

Jeanne probably did not realize the impact of these prophetic words. Many years were to pass before this call became clear to her. In the meantime, she left Cancale for the nearby town of Saint Servan. A nurse at Le Rosais Hospital, a visiting nurse, then a servant, she desired only to serve God and others, especially the poor.

She was in this way faithful to the ideal of configuration to Jesus through Mary – that Saint John Eudes taught to members of the Third Order of the Admirable Mother, an association founded in the 17th century which she joined around the age of twenty-five.

Saint Servan, 1839

One winter’s evening, Jeanne opened her home and heart to an elderly woman named Anne Chauvin. Anne was half paralyzed, blind, and had suddenly found herself all alone. Jeanne gave up her bed for Anne, and slept in the attic. This act committed her forever. Soon another old woman followed, then a third. In 1843, there were forty of them around Jeanne and her three young companions, who had chosen her as the Superior of their small Association which was slowly taking the form of a religious community.

However, it was not long before Jeanne was deprived of this responsibility. Through her faith and love, she discovered in this turn of events God’s plan for herself and for her religious family. Jeanne then spent all her time collecting for the poor.  She had witnessed this act of charity and of sharing as a child in Cancale, when a sailors’ widow was in need. Jeanne was encouraged to continue collecting by a Brother of Saint John of God.

Time of Hidden Growth, 1862-1879

As the years passed by, Jeanne Jugan was buried more deeply in obscurity. The history of the beginning of her work was distorted. When she died on August 29, 1879, in La Tour St. Joseph, few Little Sisters knew that she was the foundress. However, her influence on the younger Little Sisters, whose life she had shared for twenty-seven years, was decisive. During this long period, she transmitted to them the original charism and spirit of the community. Little by little the situation became clear.

In 1902, the truth became evident. Jeanne Jugan, Sister Mary of the Cross, who died on oblivion a quarter of century earlier, was not the third Little Sister, as it was believed, but the first, the foundress. Her tomb, in the crypt of the chapel of the Motherhouse, in La Tour St. Joseph (Saint Pern), attracts many pilgrims, as do her birthplace in the hamlet of Les Petites Croix, in Cancale, and the foundation’s house in Saint Servan.

Recognition

On July 13, 1979, the Church officially acknowledged the heroic nature of Jeanne Jugan’s virtues.

On October 3, 1982, at her beatification in the presence of 60,000 pilgrims from all over the world, Pope John Paul II declared of “Blessed Jeanne Jugan” that “God could glorify no more humble a servant than her.”  Her example continues to inspire the Little Sisters of the Poor today as they continue her work of humble service to the poor.

She was beatified on October 11, 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI.

Printed with permission from the Little Sisters of the Poor.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=579

Ken Connor, Catholic Exchange, August 28th, 2010

By  Jeff Crouere, Human Events, 08/29/2010

Five years after Hurricane Katrina, the biggest adversary for the people of Louisiana continues to be government at all levels, local, state and especially, federal.

Hurricane Katrina was a devastating storm, but the destruction was made much greater by the failure of the levees that were built to protect the city.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed levees that were supposedly built to withstand a Category 3 storm. Katrina was only a Category 3 storm when it hit the Louisiana coast, but the levees did not hold and as a result, 80% of New Orleans was flooded. The devastation was immense as 1,836 people died and the property damage reached $81 billion.

As we commemorate the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural and man-made disaster in American history, it is worthwhile to remember one of the storm’s biggest lessons: self-reliance. The people who survived were those who heeded the call to evacuate, while those who died remained in the city, dependent on a government that thoroughly failed to protect the people.

People without the means of transportation were stuck in the city amidst total chaos. All levels of government were ill-prepared and ill-equipped to handle the destruction of Hurricane Katrina.

The Army Corps of Engineers failed to build proper levees and the Orleans Parish Levee Board failed to maintain those suspect levees, making devastation even more intense. The result was that New Orleans was destroyed and people died needlessly.

There was failure on all levels of government. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin did not evacuate residents using scores of available school buses, which flooded in storm waters. He was overwhelmed by the disaster and took refuge on the top floor of the Hyatt Regency Hotel. He was overcome by the monumental disaster, but he was certainly not the only one.

The New Orleans Police Department was left without credible leadership and there was anarchy in the department and on the streets of the city. Too many officers abandoned their positions and left town without permission. Others were engaged in wanton, criminal behavior that is just now being prosecuted by the Justice Department. Sadly, one of the department’s worst decisions was to take away guns from law-abiding citizens. As the police self-destructed, the last thing that should have been done was to disarm a nervous public.

In the early days after the hurricane, there was lawlessness on the streets of New Orleans. As fires were burning and the flood waters had not yet receded, the federal government was much too slow to respond. While television cameras were recording horrific scenes of despair at the Louisiana Superdome and the Morial Convention Center, the federal government was nowhere to be seen. It took five long days after Katrina for FEMA to provide initial help to the storm victims.

Eventually, the U.S. Army, under the command of Lt. General Russell Honore, a “John Wayne”-type leader, restored order in the city.

In the months and years after the storm, a rebuilding program was administered by the State of Louisiana using funds provided by the federal government. This “Road Home” program had the stamp of approval of Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco. In fact, it was called Blanco’s program, but unfortunately for the governor it was an unmitigated failure.

The Road Home program was rife with waste, mismanagement, fraud and incompetence. Disbursements to storm victims were tardy and inadequate, as the program was improperly managed by ICF, a Virginia firm with no experience in this type of activity. The firm was paid a handsome sum, but did not deliver quality results to people demanding action. Five years after the storm, some people are still waiting for their “Road Home” grants.

The program was nicknamed the “Road to Nowhere,” and it perfectly characterized the political fortunes of Blanco. The program was so unpopular that Blanco decided to forgo the embarrassment and not run for re-election in the fall of 2007.

The money supposedly earmarked for citizens was stuck in the disastrous “Road Home” program. Other rebuilding money was directly allocated to municipalities like New Orleans. The New Orleans Recovery Director Ed Blakely promised there would be a robust recovery and that “cranes in the sky” would be seen all over the city.

Sadly, the cranes never materialized, but there were certainly plenty of questions about Blakely. Inquiring minds wanted to know why Mayor Nagin hired a recovery director who only worked part-time in New Orleans and maintained his residence in Australia. With so much of his time focused on lecturing and traveling, Blakely’s impact on New Orleans was limited. In the end, this was a case of more unfilled promises from another government official.

Some major infrastructure projects are finally getting started and the future of New Orleans looks much brighter. The city has a new mayor, an honest district attorney and a competent police chief.

The disaster forced major reforms in public education and now New Orleans is a model for innovation in public education. Charter schools have been started all over New Orleans and the bureaucracy of the Orleans Parish School Board has been dismantled. Prior to Katrina, the school board was known for corruption and waste. Today, the school board only controls a handful of schools and bureaucrats can no longer wreck havoc on poor school children. The corrupt board members have either been convicted or removed from office by the voters.

Five years after the hurricane, the City of New Orleans perseveres despite constant threats from the Gulf. As new levees are being constructed, the real problem of coastal erosion remains unaddressed. The coast has been destroyed by canals constructed by oil and gas companies and the effect of serious storms over the years. Only token efforts have been made to repair a coast that is eroding at a rate of a football field a day. This lack of action is perhaps the government’s greatest failure. Without the proper coastal restoration, no amount of levee reconstruction will ever protect a city that is eight feet below sea level.

Through all of the challenges, the one constant has been the people of New Orleans, who remain resilient and committed to their unique city and their unique way of life. Congratulations are in order to the thousands of people who returned to the Crescent City on their own with little or no help from the government and in spite of the action and inaction of various government entities.

The people of New Orleans remain the true heroes in the ongoing saga of Hurricane Katrina and the long aftermath.

Mr. Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, ‘Ringside Politics,’ which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. He is the political analyst for WGNO-TV ABC26. For more information, visit his web site at www.ringsidepolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38739

From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, broadcaster Glenn Beck has told a crowd of tens of thousands of people gathering on the National Mall that their country has “wandered in darkness” for too long.

(Below) The entire speech delivered by the former Vice Presidential nominee that brought many in the throng to tears.

Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) - Civil rights activist Rev. Dr. Walter Fauntroy criticized Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally set for this weekend and said the Ku Klux Klan and the Tea Party have to be used “interchangeably.”

“In 2010, the ring wing conservatives of this country have declared war on that civil rights movement of the 60s that brought together a coalition of conscience of people of every race creed and color for a march on jobs and freedom,” said Dr. Fauntroy, one of the chief organizers of Dr. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington in 1963.

He continued, “In 2012, from this press conference on, we’re going to organize, beginning with the original sponsors of the march on Washington, 63, a new coalition of conscience and we’re going to take on the barbarism of war, the decadence of racism and the scourge of poverty that the Ku Klux – I meant to say that the Tea Party – you all forgive me but you have to use them interchangeably.”

Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally will take place this Saturday – the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington in 1963.

“This is going to be an iconic event,” Beck said. “This is going to be a moment that you’ll never be able to paint people as haters, racists, none of it. This is a moment, quite honestly, that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement. It has been so distorted and so turned upside down. It is an abomination.”

“They [right wing conservatives] have launched a counter offensive in 2010 based on a concept of the universal principle of exclusion – exclude everybody but those whom the founding fathers recognized when this nation was founded. They have said we want to go back to the founding fathers who were flawed because they said citizenship belongs only to white men who own property,” said Dr. Fauntroy, who served as the non-voting delegate of the District of Columbia from 1971-1991.

Dr. Fauntroy’s comments were made a press conference held on Thursday sponsored by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) at the National Press Club where several African American leaders refuted what they call the “religious right attack on reproductive health in black communities.” Georgia Right to Life and the Radiance Foundation are some of the groups behind the billboards.

“So we did a little work to figure out who in the world is behind this insanity and of course it’s the same players, the same players who have traditionally tried to re-write history, have become historical distracters and to use this weekend when we remember that great march on Washington, 1963 as a pretense to give credence to their cause and their agenda is insulting,” said Rev. Timothy McDonald, the Pastor of First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA.

He continued, “We are moving forward and not backwards and we cannot allow people like Beck and even Alveda to turn back the clock on where America has been headed.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71786

August 29, 2010
Twenty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time

Luke 14: 1, 7-14

On a sabbath Jesus went to dine at the home of one of the leading Pharisees, and the people there were observing him carefully. He told a parable to those who had been invited, noticing how they were choosing the places of honor at the table. “When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not recline at table in the place of honor. A more distinguished guest than you may have been invited by him, and the host who invited both of you may approach you and say, ´Give your place to this man,´ and then you would proceed with embarrassment to take the lowest place. Rather, when you are invited, go and take the lowest place so that when the host comes to you he may say, ´My friend, move up to a higher position.´ Then you will enjoy the esteem of your companions at the table. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Then he said to the host who invited him, “When you hold a lunch or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your wealthy neighbors, in case they may invite you back and you have repayment. Rather, when you hold a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind; blessed indeed will you be because of their inability to repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

Introductory Prayer: Lord God, I come from dust and to dust I shall return. You, however, existed before all time, and every creature takes its being from you. You formed me in my mother’s womb with infinite care, and you watch over me tenderly. I hope you will embrace my soul at my death to carry me home to heaven to be with you forever. Thank you for looking upon me and blessing me with your love. Take my love in return. I humbly offer you all that I am.

Petition: Grant me, Lord, to put my life humbly in your hands.

1. Opening the Door to God Today’s reading shows us Jesus dining at the house of a Pharisee. Apparently they had invited him in order to examine him closely, as they tended to find fault with everyone who was not of their sect. Jesus turns the tables by calling them to task for their pride. Inviting Jesus into our lives always means opening ourselves to a challenge. He will reward our generosity by offering us the road to greater holiness – which means that he will reveal our weaknesses to us and challenge us to be better. Christianity isn’t comfortable. We have to be ready to discover that we are not as holy and good as we thought we were. Humility is an essential virtue for any true Christian. We need to ask ourselves if we give God the first place at the table in our lives, and if we are really listening to his invitation to conquer our defects and grow in sanctity.

2. The Quickest Way Up Is to Go Down Living humility may be difficult sometimes because of our natural tendency to be self-centered, “to look out for #1.” Nonetheless, Jesus teaches that living humility is the gateway to the road that leads to happiness. If we are only looking out for ourselves, seeking the highest “places of honor,” we are bound to be disappointed. God does not reward self-love. Moreover, because of our limitations, we do not know well what is good for us, nor are we able to achieve it without God’s grace. The rewards we can expect from human beings – honors, power, pleasure – are limited in time and quantity, and cannot satisfy our soul, which yearns for God. How often has our pride been the cause of conflict and unhappiness? God will lift us up to true fulfillment only if we get down from our own ivory tower of egotism.

3. Save Room for Dessert… If we are humble and seek to serve God instead of our own aggrandizement, then we leave the reward up to God: He will give us the place in his plan that is best for us. God’s reward is always better than what the world can offer because he promises everlasting life and the joy of heaven. Although we don’t know exactly what that will be like, Jesus clearly tells us that it’s so good, we should strive not to be rewarded in this life. That seems to go against common sense – “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” – but if we really have faith in God and his Word, we need to put it into practice. If life is like the banquet of today’s reading, our time in this world is just the appetizer. “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Conversation with Christ: Lord, help me to trust in you completely, not seeking myself, but doing my best to serve you with humility and letting you take care of the rest. I know you are all good and loving, and you will not let those who serve you go without their reward.

Resolution: Today I will practice humility by putting others first in whatever way I can: yielding to them in conversation, giving them the first choice when possible…

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

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, AUGUST 29, 2010

On this day, the universal Church marks the beheading of John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Jesus. As an adult, he lived as a hermit in the wilderness. After the Spirit inspired him, he went about preaching that people should repent for their sins and be baptized to prepare for the Messiah.

Herod imprisoned John because John had condemned Herod for committing adultery by living with his brother’s wife, Herodias.

The daughter of Herodias danced for Herod on his birthday. Herod was so impressed that he said he would offer her anything she liked. She consulted with Herodias who told her to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a platter. And so John was beheaded.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=578

Posted by Fr. James Farfaglia, August 28, 2010

The audio podcast of this homily will appear some time Sunday afternoon

http://donotbediscouraged.blogspot.com/2010/08/sunday-homily-importance-of-humility.html

Rush Limbaugh with his 4th wife Kathryn Rogers

Generally, conservative Catholics love Rush Limbaugh, especially my brother, Norman.

When Limbaugh had his TV show in New York City a number of years back, my entrepreneurial brother Norman and his wife, Dolores, travelled from Cleveland, Ohio, to  be part of the live audience.  Just prior to the taping of the show, Norman saw a nearby bakery shop and convinced Dolores to step inside and check out the New York delicacies.  While my brother was admiring the cannolis, a man came inside, bumped up against Norman,  then abruptly left.  My brother’s first thought was “rude New Yorker.”  His quick second thought was “my wallet!”

Sure enough.  Norman’s pocket was picked  for the first and only time in his life right outside Limbaugh’s TV studio.  When Rush heard about this, he expressed his apology on behalf of New York City and told Norman to go to Patsy’s, one of Rush’s favorite restaurants and order the best steaks in the restaurant and Limbaugh picked up the bill; around $300 which pretty much made up for some of the cash stolen, although the credit cards were still gone.

Rush Limbaugh became a cult hero in our Catholic family and for some they can’t get through the day without their three hours of Rush.

But there seems to be a growing uneasiness among Catholics about Limbaugh.

Pro-marriage Catholics are uneasy about Limbaugh’s fourth marriage, although some couldn’t care less if the talented radio talk show host was married 4 times or 44 times (Click here.) But there’s a certain uneasiness there.

Pro-family Catholics are uneasy about Limbaugh’s recent “approval” of gay civil unions reinforced by hiring the gay Elton John to perform at Limbaugh’s recent wedding.  Some Catholics couldn’t care less if the newlyweds were serenaded by 77 lesbians.  But there’s an uneasiness in the Catholic ranks as noted on the Catholic Exchange website (Click here.)

Pro-blue collar worker Catholics make up the vast majority of the 60 million American Catholics who are non-entrepreneurs working for other people, and may belong to trade unions which Limbaugh blasts regularly, making some Catholics feel uneasy in their workplace.

In addition to his championing of capitalism, constitutionalism and democracy, what is keeping most Catholics loyal to Limbaugh is his pro-life position.

However, if Limbaugh tumbles backward into pro-choice advocacy for whatever reason, perhaps the same way he fell into approval of gay civil unions, the famous conservative talk show host can expect being served with divorce papers from a large chunk of his listening audience … the uneasy Catholics.

The South Coast Report, which is also known as the Catholic Investigative Journal, investigatives and reports on critical issues and influential personalities as they align with or conflict with our Catholic values and influence the future of our nation and our Church.

http://southcoastreport.com/is-rush-limbaugh-still-a-friend-to-catholics/

2010 Legislative Scorecard

USCCB’s Environmental Justice Program: Caring for God’s Creation

The Environmental Justice Program (EJP) calls Catholics to a deeper respect for God’s creation and engages parishes in activities that deal with environmental problems, particularly as they affect the poor.

• Learn the Background
• Useful Resources for Dioceses & Parishes
• Special Projects
  Climate Change Justice and Health Initiative
  Children’s Health and the Environment Initiative

• EJP News

The Catholic Coalition on Climate Change

World Day of Peace – January 1

——————————————————————————————-

Catholic Climate Covenant (SOURCE:  USCCB website)

The impact of climate change falls heaviest on the world’s poor. As Catholics, our faith demands prudent action.

Our cars and power plants, more energy consumption and waste—we’re leaving a bigger carbon footprint. Scientists tell us that means more climate change. Here and around the world, it is the poor who will be hit hardest. With more droughts, floods, hunger and joblessness. As faithful Catholics, we have a moral obligation to care for both Creation and the poor. Pope Benedict XVI insists, “Before it is too late, it is necessary to make courageous decisions” to curb climate change.

http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/

What ever happened to the Catholic Church Saving Souls and not Planets?

Isn’t the human person God’s Greatest Creation?

When will Catholic funds go to assisting pro-life causes instead of toward saving the Planet?

What is the agenda of the United States Bishops?

The Bishops’ Conference needs to stop supporting the hysteria around global warming and realize the real agenda behind this very dangerous movement.

This program is from RealCatholicTV.com

WATCH ONLINE: http://www.realcatholictv.com/free/index.php?vidID=vort-2010-08-27

Catholic Exchange Interview with Flipped Director, Rob Reiner

By Mark Armstrong, Catholic Exchange, August 28th, 2010

Mark Armstrong is the co-author of Amazing Grace for Fathers along with his wife, Patti Armstrong, Jeff Cavins and Matt Pinto. The couple’s website is at www.raisingcatholickids.com

http://catholicexchange.com/2010/08/28/133714/

Archbishop’s Clarion Herald Article
By Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond, Clarion Herald 8/21/10

This is the fifth anniversary of Katrina. I imagine some people just want to forget about it.

I have a very difficult time calling it an anniversary because anniversaries are usually joyful events. I would rather call it a commemoration. We are commemorating five years since the unwelcome guest – Katrina – brought so much damage to the Archdiocese of New Orleans.

Why is it important to look back?

We can look to the past and pray for those who lost their lives in the storm and the flooding. We also can look to the past and the present to thank God for giving us the courage, strength and perseverance to rebuild. In the midst of the tragedy, God certainly has carried us in his heart. Though incredible destruction has taken place, God has not abandoned us but helped us to rebuild and to receive the gift of new life. We say this while remembering that some still have not finished rebuilding, and our prayers and support go out to them as they do so. We also have an opportunity to thank God for his fidelity and to ask God to help us to continue to be a people of hope.

Now, five years later, we find ourselves confronting another unwelcome guest with the oil tragedy. Many have at least temporarily lost their jobs and are enduring tough economic times. We don’t know how long the fishing and oyster industry will be affected, and there are environmental damages that may take us a decade to uncover. In the midst of all of that, we believe God has been with us. As tragic as it was, we do believe it could have been much more devastating, and we are mindful of the 11 people who died in the explosion as well as their families. We pray for their eternal rest.

We’ve been told Catholic Charities will be there for the long haul.

Catholic Charities will continue to be there for the people until this situation is resolved. We must be the hands and the heart of Christ, reaching out to our sisters and brothers within our own family who are in need. Catholic Charities has done an extraordinary job of proving food, counseling and case management. The priests, deacons and religious have cooperated in providing hopeful support.

What will happen on Sunday, Aug. 29?

I’m asking parishes in the archdiocese to celebrate Mass in honor of Our Lady of Prompt Succor, who is the patroness of the archdiocese. She brings us closer to her son Jesus, and she unites her prayer to our own. She has accompanied the archdiocese through floods, hurricanes, yellow fever epidemics and fires. She remains our mother and will continue to be with. I will celebrate the 11 a.m. Mass at St. Louis Cathedral and then, at 1:30 p.m., I will welcome religious leaders from our community to the cathe dral for an inter-faith prayer service. I’m also very glad that the people of the St. Bernard area will hold a “funeral” for Katrina on Aug. 28 at 11 a.m. at Our Lady of Prompt Succor Church in Chalmette. While some of Katrina’s destruction remains, it’s important that we symbolically bury her and move on to new life.

Do you still see signs of Katrina-related stress?

I do, and I don’t believe it’s my imagination. I still hear people talk not only about the destruction of buildings, homes and churches but also about their emotional harm and fears. For many people, those wounds have been reopened with the oil tragedy, which reminds us of our own limitedness as human beings. Through Catholic Charities and through our parishes, we still need to be very attentive to those who are experiencing stress. Without a doubt, the number of suicides has increased.
As Christians, we have the power of God to be signs of hope for those who are in despair.

What are the biggest challenges the church faces five years after Katrina?

The first challenge would be to find those individuals who are hurting and be present to them and extend to them the charity of Christ. When one member of the family suffers, we all suffer. Secondly, we are still rebuilding. As we look around our neighborhoods, we see that rebuilding is still taking place. I’ve had the privilege to dedicate the new churches at Our Lady of Lourdes in Violet and Our Lady of Lourdes in Slidell, and I will rededicate the mission church at St. Ann in Empire on Sept. 2 at 7 p.m. So, we are seeing rebuilding taking place. Thirdly, we have to make sure through Catholic Charities and other Catholic charitable foundations that we have the necessary resources for people to regain their lives.

Are you making plans to establish an administrative office for the archdiocese on the northshore?

There is nothing concrete yet, but there are ongoing conversations on what we can do to make the presence of the church more visible. I’ve read the blogs, and some people are suggesting that we’re simply going “where the money is” or we’re forgetting about the city. That certainly is not my intent. I and those who share ministry with me are called to be leaders and shepherds for the entire archdiocese, and we have to make sure that the presence of the archdiocese is significant and noticeable in all areas.

Archbishop Aymond welcomes questions from readers. Please e-mail questions to clarionherald@clarionherald.org.

http://www.arch-no.org/article.php