Brown Pelican Society of Louisiana

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

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:01:15 +0000

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?

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:54:13 +0000

The Senate bill’s abortion language is not the House Speaker’s only problem.

By MICHAEL BARONE, WALL STREET JOURNAL, MARCH 11, 2010

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.

The Democratic bedrock is actually slightly smaller than the Republican bedrock was four years ago, even though the Democrats have 31 more members. That’s partly because of Republican gerrymandering earlier in the decade, but it’s more because Democratic voters tend to be bunched in relatively few districts. Mr. Obama carried 28 districts with 80% or more; John McCain didn’t reach that percentage in any district.

A lot of Democrats—most Black Caucus members and many “gentry liberals” (to use urban scholar Joel Kotkin’s term) like Mrs. Pelosi—are elected in overwhelmingly Democratic districts. This means there aren’t that many faithful Democratic voters to spread around to other seats.

As a result, more than 40 House Democrats represent districts which John McCain carried. Most voted no in November and would presumably be hurt by switching to yes now. Moreover, Mr. Obama’s job approval now hovers around 48%, five points lower than his winning percentage in 2008. His approval on health care is even lower.

Another 32 House Democrats represent districts where Mr. Obama won between 50% and 54% of the vote, and where his approval is likely to be running under 50% now. That leaves just 176 House Democrats from districts where Mr. Obama’s approval rating is not, to borrow a real-estate term, under water. That’s 40 votes less than the 216 needed.

“If there is a path to 216 votes, I am confident the Speaker will find it,” writes Bush White House legislative strategy analyst Keith Hennessey on his blog. “She has a remarkable ability to bend her colleagues to her will.” True, but perhaps that ability has led Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill to embark on what will be remembered as a mission impossible.

Mrs. Pelosi, whom I have known for almost 30 years, may turn out to be even shrewder than I think. But she may be facing a moment as flummoxing as the one when Democratic Speaker Thomas Foley lost the vote on the rule to consider the crime and gun control bill in August 1994, or when Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert saw the Mark Foley scandal explode on the last day of the session in September 2006. Both were moments when highly competent and dedicated House speakers saw their majorities shattered beyond repair.

That moment, if it comes, will occur some time between now and the Easter recess. The Democrats’ struggle to get 216 votes is high stakes poker.

Mr. Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and co-author of “The Almanac of American Politics 2010″ (National Journal).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703701004575113292688090292.html

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

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:39:23 +0000

….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.

Father William Breslin of Sacred Heart Church said that the decision not to allow the child to re-enroll was “the most difficult decision of my life,” but that his priestly vows of obedience to his bishop required him to follow the Archdiocese’s policy.

“It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents,” he said. ”It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that.”

In his column, Chaput agreed with Breslin’s decision, saying that “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.”

Although he recognized the “painful” situation between the lesbian couple and Sacred Heart, Chaput explained that “the Church can’t change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission.”

“The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are ‘bad,’ or that their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite,” said Chaput.

“But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman,” he said. ”These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society.”

Chaput further illustrated that the archdiocesan policy was meant for the good of all parties involved: the couple, the children, and the school.

Because the parents reject or fail to respect the Church’s teachings, he explained, the situation puts “unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.”

See previous coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
Boulder School Refuses Entry to Child in Care of Lesbian ‘Couple’

SOURCE: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10031006.html

Reagan-Obama Debate

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:17:30 +0000

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

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:11:31 +0000

….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

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:45:47 +0000

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

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:31:10 +0000

“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

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:30:02 +0000

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

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:24:34 +0000

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.

“This is a perfect political climate for Romney to downplay abortion and run as an economic problem-solver. But if he continues to pretend he was never pro-choice or play word games about his previous stance, abortion will plague his candidacy again in 2012,” Antle continues.

For pro-life advocates, overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion decision so abortion can again be prohibited has always been a hallmark of a true pro-life stance.

During a January 2008 campaign stop in Nevada, Romney said he lined up with the pro-life movement against Roe.

“I am pro-life, and I would welcome a time when the people of America concluded that abortion was wrong, but that’s not where America is, and that’s why I believe that the next right step for America is for the court to overturn Roe v. Wade,” he said. “That would return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to set their own laws related to abortion.”

Romney converted to a pro-life position after years of supporting legalized abortion.

He also said during the 2008 presidential campaign that he supports a federal human life amendment as a second goal after first toppling Roe and letting states ban abortions again.

Any Republican taking on Obama would face a president who has compiled a lengthy pro-abortion record.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6099.html

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

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:21:41 +0000

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.

PHOENIX, ARIZONA: Beth in Phoenix reports at least eleven babies have been spared from abortion during this 40 Days for Life campaign. “I praise God for our prayer warriors and gifted sidewalk counselors,” she said.

In addition, two volunteer escorts at the Phoenix abortion center have quit! One of them shared her gratitude for the vigil participants’ presence.

PENSACOLA, FLORIDA: One of the prayer volunteers spoke with two women in their vehicle outside the abortion center. He handed one of them a brochure about abortion alternatives and what abortion does to women.

“Two hours later the women drove past us, giving us the thumbs up and pointing that she kept her baby,” said Ernie in Pensacola. “What would have happened if the prayer vigil participant had not been there to hand these women this information?”

I also have news on how 40 Days for Life is gathering momentum in Australia. The team in Brisbane, which is conducting its second 40 Days for Life campaign, recently had a great opportunity to spread the word about this life-saving ministry.

Daniel, who serves as Brisbane’s media and communications coordinator, was interviewed on the Vision Radio Network, a nationwide Christian broadcaster in Australia. (Click here to listen to this 10-minute clip)

How many more lives will be saved this week, thanks to your prayers and faithfulness?

I can’t wait to find out!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10030815.html

Day 20 of 40 Days: 209 Babies Saved from Abortion

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:08:08 +0000

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.

Here are just a few of those miracles:

“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.

In addition, two volunteer escorts at the Phoenix abortion center have quit! One of them shared her gratitude for the vigil participants’ presence.

How many more lives will be saved this week, thanks to your prayers and faithfulness?

I can’t wait to find out!

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10030815.html

GOSPEL & MEDITATION: Jesus or Satan

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:01:46 +0000

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

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:59:49 +0000

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

scribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:52:57 +0000

ASTOUNDING! CCHD & Alinsky

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:59:39 +0000

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

Is the Declaration of Independence Still Relevant?

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:36:36 +0000

BILL WHITTLE, BIG JOURNALISM, MARCH 9, 2010

http://bigjournalism.com/bwhittle/2010/03/09/is-the-declaration-of-independence-still-relevant/

When I was at CPAC a few weeks ago, I decided to stay an extra day and do the Washington tour. Now as someone who lives in Los Angeles, it is simply shocking to me how much history is within walking distance of the Washington monument, say.

At the Air and Space Museum, you can see John Glenn’s FRIENDSHIP 7 capsule and a replica of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module (you can tell it’s a replica, and not one of the built but unflown actual LMs, because the Lunar Module is so fragile it cannot support itself on its own legs in the Earth’s gravity field.)

Just a few blocks away is Ford’s Theater, and across the street, the Peterson House where Abraham Lincoln spent his final eight hours of agony. To go from that dingy, cheap little flophouse and then to the marble temple at the far end of the Mall produces a profound reaction in the human heart. But nothing I saw affected me as did the Declaration of Independence. I expected to be filled with reverence and awe. Instead, I was overwhelmed with despair.

My friends, the Declaration of Independence is gone: irreparably faded. And I fear that the ideals so boldly pronounced in that document are also fading from the pages of society. A few years ago, they opened the Super Bowl telecast by having players from both teams simply read lines from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence, and the switchboards were flooded with thousands of irate calls protesting this “right-wing propaganda.”

And we who work in Hollywood know that the kind of movies this town has churned out for forty years now must certainly bear a heavy responsibly for not only the fading of those ideals, but for the active attempt to erase them as quickly as possible.

But despair and resignation are, in fact, the goals of those would see these imperishable words fade from our lives. We can renew those words, in a very simple and heartfelt way.

One answer is in the video, and simply as one citizen to another, I would encourage you to repeat what I personally did for my own personal benefit. You will feel a thousand times better about yourself and your country, and that sense of optimism and pride is kryptonite to the people who wish her harm.

RSC Ad Features Talking Babies Rejecting ObamaCare

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:28:35 +0000

“You realize the chances of winning are the same as the democrats’ chance of avoiding an ethics scandal and a new backroom deal?”

Rep. Rogers’ Video of Obamacare Reaches Nearly 7 million at YouTube

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:21:34 +0000

RenewAmerica staff, March 10, 2010

When the president’s socialized health care plan was first introduced in Congress in July 2009, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) of the House Subcommittee on Health delivered a scathing — but common-sense — appraisal of “Obamacare,” labeling it a “travesty.”

The congressman’s remarks, made July 16, 2009, have since gone “viral” after they were posted on YouTube, where they have now been seen by over 6.9 million viewers.

In his remarks, Congressman Rogers, a former special agent with the FBI in Chicago, said:

“Mr. Chairman, I can’t tell you how much I’m disappointed at what a lost opportunity we have to solve a huge problem in health care [affecting] access and quality to some — even by your numbers — 46 million, and that’s about 15 percent of the American population.

“Abraham Lincoln said, ‘You can’t make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak.’

“And so what we’ve decided to do today is abandon the very principles of America, and say, ‘You know what? It’s so hard and it’s so difficult we’re going to punish the 85 percent of Americans who have earned health care benefits as part of their employment, and we’re going to punish them and the employers who give it to them to try to cover the 15 percent that don’t have it.’

“That doesn’t hardly seem like a solution that any of us would come to. Why would we punish the part that’s working to cover the part that’s not? It’s like taking a queen-size sheet and trying to put it over a king-size bed. I will guarantee you that the corners are going to come up.”

False choices

Rep. Rogers said that the Democrats’ government-run health care plan is being touted as the only choice for reforming America’s top-rated health care system, and he pointed out, “It’s the Democrats’ choice that it’s either this or nothing. You present us very false choices.”

He added,

“Let me tell you about the trade-offs [of] going to this government-run system, . . . [T]hey can actually go in and disenroll individuals — unprecedented power by the federal government. They can rip you off your own individual plan. It’s in the bill.

“Oh, matter of fact, if you’re an employer — $250,000 a payroll — payroll that’s gross payroll, not much, guess what? They can disenroll your whole company off a certain plan. Tell me that you don’t work for the federal government. Unbelievable!”

Less chance of surviving cancer under Obamacare

Comparing facts about Canada’s socialized health care system and the current U.S. system — facts that suggest that “if you get . . . cancer, you have less chance of survivability [under Canada's system] than you do in the United States” — Rogers said, “So, what you’re going to do is look your mothers and your daughters in the eye and say, “I . . . am going to tell you if you get breast cancer, I’m sorry, honey, you have less of a chance of survival then you did before this bill passed.”

“I will not punish any woman in America [with] this kind of system, knowing how great America is. The very innovation of who we are is what got us here. And it wasn’t the federal government and it wasn’t Washington, D.C. It was individuals who stood up for themselves and said, ‘We can do better.’”

Video already ‘viral’ by Sept. 2009

When Rogers’ remarks had drawn almost 2.9 million views in September 2009, Jason Plautz at NationalJournal.com wrote on Sept. 3,

“It’s rare that footage from a congressional committee gets much play the first time it’s aired, let alone repeat viewings. But somehow, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., has become a YouTube sensation for his opening statement during a hearing about health care reform.

“The nearly four-minute video has drawn almost 6.9 million views. Many are watching the clip on blogs where it’s shared, but the link is also being forwarded across the country in e-mails with subject lines like ‘a clear look at Obama’s health care plan.’”

“How significant is 6.9 million views?”, Plautz asks. “Only four of the 1,866 videos on President Obama’s YouTube channel have exceeded that number.”

Rogers, who represents Michigan’s 8th District, has been a member of Congress since January 2001.

To watch Rep. Rogers’ speech, click here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc

SOURCE: http://www.renewamerica.com/article/100310

Normalizing the Extraordinary Form: Priests Are Free to Celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass at Any Time

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:30:55 +0000

BY EDWARD PENTIN, National Catholic Register, 3/9/10

The Vatican has issued a directive to a Polish diocese that emphasizes the freedom of priests to celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form whenever they choose.

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei made the clarification in January in a series of responses to questions from a Polish diocese, which sought clarification regarding the use of the traditional Latin Mass. The answers, which came to public attention in mid-February, concerned Pope Benedict’s 2007 apostolic letter Summorum Pontificum, issued “motu proprio” (on his own initiative).

However, the Vatican stresses that the clarification is addressed to a particular group and is “not a set of guidelines.” Officials are still working on a comprehensive set of guidelines on Summorum Pontificum, which are expected to be published soon.

Two points of the ruling are considered most significant: A Mass in the extraordinary form “may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the ordinary form,” and a parish priest “may schedule a public Mass in the extraordinary form on his own accord.”

Another response also stipulates that the calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Roman Missal “may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Roman Missal in Masses in the extraordinary form.”

Michael Dunnigan, chairman of Una Voce America, said the commission’s response “forcefully reaffirms both the plain meaning of Summorum Pontificum and also the rights of the laity and clergy who are devoted to the traditional Mass.”

The first response begins: “If there is no other possibility, because for instance in all churches of a diocese the liturgies of the Easter triduum are already being celebrated in the ordinary form, the liturgies of the Easter triduum may, in the same church in which they are already celebrated in the ordinary form, be additionally celebrated in the extraordinary form, if the local ordinary allows.”

The second response clarifies that a Mass in the usus antiquior (extraordinary form) “may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the ordinary form.” The question contextualizes that in many churches Sunday Masses are more or less scheduled continually, leaving free only very inconvenient mid-afternoon slots, but this is merely context, the question posed being general. The answer leaves the matter “to the prudent judgment of the parish priest,” and emphasizes “the right of a stable group to assist at Mass in the extraordinary form.”

In the third response, it states that a parish priest “may schedule a public Mass in the extraordinary form on his own accord (i.e. without the request of a group of faithful) for the benefit of the faithful including those unfamiliar with the usus antiquior.” The response of the commission here is identical to No. 2.

Fourth, it adds that “the calendar, readings or prefaces of the 1970 Missale Romanum may not be substituted for those of the 1962 Missale Romanum in Masses in the extraordinary form.”

Lastly, it states: “While the liturgical readings (epistle and Gospel) themselves have to be read by the priest (or deacon/subdeacon) as foreseen by the rubrics, a translation to the vernacular may afterwards be read also by a layman.”

Regarding the second and third responses, Dunnigan said that, strictly speaking, they should “not have been necessary at all, because the language of Summorum Pontificum already was clear.” However, he added that in the United States the faithful have experienced the same type of obstruction to celebration of the traditional Latin Mass as has happened in Poland.

“Some leaders in the Church seem determined to relegate the traditional Mass to second-class status by restricting the pastor’s prerogative to revise his parish’s Mass schedule,” said Dunnigan. “I am grateful to the commission for making clear that these obstacles find no support in Summorum Pontificum and amount to unjust restrictions on the rights of the faithful.”

The last two responses may not be as rigid as they seem. A committee of Ecclesia Dei is currently studying what parts of the new Missal can be used in the extraordinary form and, although not yet certain, it is probable that saints canonized since 1962 will be incorporated into the 1962 Missal. (There are already communities where the 1970 sanctoral cycle is followed with the commission’s tacit approval, such as the Abbey of Fontgombault and all its daughterhouses, including Clear Creek in Hulbert, Okla.)

This means, for instance, that the two forms of the Mass could celebrate saints on the same days, something which would be in line with Pope Benedict XVI’s accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum.

The Holy Father wrote: “The two forms of the usage of the Roman rite can be mutually enriching: New saints and some of the new prefaces can and should be inserted in the old missal.”

The directive on liturgical readings may also be looser than it might appear in these responses, as there are already communities using the traditional Latin Mass with the new lectionary in the vernacular.

The Vatican has long been concerned about resistance to allowing stable groups of faithful and priests to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass.

Although it believes these obstructions are beginning to die down, Ecclesia Dei still plans on issuing a “clarification document” on Summorum Pontificum.

Rumors have long circulated that the Vatican has been drawing up such a document and that it was delayed because some officials found problems with the drafts. These recent responses, apparently issued with minimal consultation, are therefore not meant to replace the forthcoming document.

Edward Pentin writes from Rome.

http://www.ncregister.com/register_exclusives/normalizing_the_extraordinary_form/

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: Ratings Not Good, But Does BHO Care?

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:49:25 +0000

RASSMUSEN, March 09, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 22% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19 (see trends).

One year after reaching the lowest levels ever recorded by the Rasmussen Consumer Index, consumer confidence has bounced back and today is at the highest level recorded since September 2008. Nationally, 32% of adults say the U.S. economy is getting better but 42% say it’s getting worse. A year ago, just 12% felt the economy was improving, and 72% thought the economy was getting worse.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) disapprove.

New polling shows Republicans with the early edge in the Governor’s races for both Colorado and Ohio. Rasmussen Reports has also released polls on the 2010 governor’s races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina Wisconsin, and Texas.

The latest polling data can always be found on the Rasmussen Reports home page, updated with new data at least six times daily.

The New York Times Magazine has a feature on Rahm Emanuel that begins by describing how the White House Chief of Staff reacted to a Rasmussen Reports poll on the Massachusetts Senate race.

Forty-two percent (42%) favor the President’s health care plan while 53% are opposed. Most believe passage of the plan will increase the cost of health care. Fifty-five percent (55%) say that Congress should scrap the current health care legislation and start over……..CONTINUED…….

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

How the Takeover Works (The Real Health-Care Plan)

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:43:19 +0000

….The Senate can only pass one reconciliation bill per year, which is why the Democrats — who seem to intuit that they won’t be so numerous next year — are laying the groundwork for a health-plus-education 51-vote omnibus reconciliation package. But in a way, the combination of student loans and health care is very clarifying. On health care, we see the government annexation in its middle stages. On student loans, we see the endpoint of the process: a takeover cloaked in a budget gimmick….

The Editors, National Review, March 10, 2010

There is something poetic about the Democrats’ plan to combine the health-care reconciliation bill with legislation that would make the government the “single payer” in the market for student loans. From subsidies to a “public option” to an outright government takeover, the history of American college-loan policy offers an instructive illustration of how the government can absorb an activity incrementally, claiming to cherish the benefits the private sector provides — until it becomes inconvenient. At that point, the private sector is cast as the enemy of sound reform. If the Democrats’ plan succeeds, then their health-care reconciliation bill will include a foreshadowing of its final act. And we can look to the case of student loans for a preview.

Democrats argue that the government should not be paying private lenders large subsidies to make low fixed-rate loans to college students when it could simply turn this activity over to the Department of Education, save itself billions of dollars, and redirect that money into other education projects. “The banking industry has had a free ride from taxpayers for too long,” declared Education Secretary Arne Duncan. But the bankers did not pull these subsidies out of thin air. The government provided them in exchange for a service: lending money to students at low fixed rates, so that more may attend college. It is similar, though not identical, to the way the Democrats’ health-care bill would succor the insurance industry by subsidizing its product while forcing people to buy it.

In the early 1990s, a change in federal accounting rules allowed the government to budget less money for student loans if it lent directly rather than subsidizing interest rates and guaranteeing against default. But that was purely an accounting maneuver: The actual cost of the program did not change. That didn’t stop the Democrats from attempting the same thing in student loans they are attempting now with health care — a federal takeover on the grounds that it could “save” the government billions. They successfully created a “public option” for student loans, but Republicans took over Congress in 1994 before Democrats could make it the sole option. Democrats fought and were able to preserve the public option on the grounds that “students and schools are served by healthy competition in student loan programs, which has created marketplace incentives for both programs to improve.” This is the same rhetoric they used when they tried to sell us a public option for health care.

But thanks to student loans, we can see into the future — and we see how quickly Democrats dispense with the rhetoric of competition when they are itching to add an activity to government’s portfolio. Suddenly, competition offers no benefits worth speaking of — unless you’re one of the many student financial-aid officers who prefer the customer service that private lenders provide over the federal government’s DMV-style bottlenecks, which promise only to get worse.

When it comes to student loans, liberals may ask why conservatives would support subsidies and guarantees for banks. The answer is: We don’t. By increasing demand for higher education without increasing the supply, the subsidies have driven tuition skyward. And by muting incentives for banks to lend intelligently, government loan guarantees have encouraged many students, including many for whom college might not be a good fit, to take on massive amounts of debt that they can neither repay nor retire through bankruptcy. The solution to this problem is to scale back subsidies for traditional forms of higher education while encouraging low-cost alternatives. Instead, the Democrats’ education bill would massively increase the subsidies while hiding their true cost. If that is the alternative, we prefer the status quo.

The Senate can only pass one reconciliation bill per year, which is why the Democrats — who seem to intuit that they won’t be so numerous next year — are laying the groundwork for a health-plus-education 51-vote omnibus reconciliation package. But in a way, the combination of student loans and health care is very clarifying. On health care, we see the government annexation in its middle stages. On student loans, we see the endpoint of the process: a takeover cloaked in a budget gimmick, private-sector providers vilified as free-riding looters, and a very short memory when it comes to the benefits of competition.

The Democrats’ current health-care legislation isn’t the end game, and in their more candid moments, Democrats such as Barney Frank have been open about the fact that maneuvers such as the public option are just an effort to move the ball down the field toward the goal of a total federal takeover. If you want a look at their playbook, look at how they’ve handled student loans.

http://article.nationalreview.com/427454/the-real-health-care-plan/the-editors

Ungovernable Savages?

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:22:58 +0000

….there is a thin line between leadership and dictatorship . . . Obama — if he signs this reform into law — will be consciously thwarting the clearly expressed desires of a large majority of the American people . . . In the most recent Rasmussen poll, 76% rate their own health coverage as good or excellent. A vast majority of Americans fail to appreciate what their wise leaders are trying to do for them….

By Mason Boyer, American Thinker, March 09, 2010

Saying that Washington is broken is so yesterday. Like denim, this sentiment will never go all the way out of style, and periodically it will rise to the height of fashion, but those on the cutting edge have moved on for now. It’s not Washington that’s broken — it’s the American people!

Bill Maher has been calling Americans stupid since last summer. Evan Thomas writes in Newsweek that Americans are typically irresponsible, fat, over-sexed, and think they are smarter than they really are. Thomas Friedman continuously laments in the New York Times that the American people are neither as enlightened nor as disciplined as the Chinese.

Robert Samuelson, holding nothing back, writes that Americans often “say things that are stupid, misleading or unattainable and think (or pretend) that these very same things are desirable, candid and realistic.”

President Obama’s biggest mistake with health care reform, then, was underestimating the depth of the electorate’s recalcitrance. He foolishly assumed that the majority of Americans were reasonable, that the evils of the current system and the benefits of his reform package were self-evident. Just in case, he spent all of last year telling us sad stories about the victims of the status quo and promising to right all the wrongs perpetrated by those dastardly insurance companies.

But too many Americans appear to have thick skulls, as evidenced by Scott Brown’s election in January. In the aftermath of Massachusetts, Obama expressed regret for being “so focused on just getting things done” that he didn’t take enough time to explain those things clearly to all the Neanderthals.

Unfortunately, the president’s renewed vigor hasn’t raised our collective IQ. According to a Zogby poll conducted in late January/early February, 69% of the more than 2,500 Americans questioned think that Congress should either go back to the drawing board or take a more incremental approach. A CNN poll in mid-February unearthed similar results: 73% want Congress to either start over on a new bill or stop working on health care reform altogether.

The average American clearly does not understand the magnitude of the crisis. In the most recent Rasmussen poll, 76% rate their own health coverage as good or excellent. A vast majority of Americans fail to appreciate what their wise leaders are trying to do for them, as only 25% believe that the proposed comprehensive reform will improve their own health care.

Obama seems to have finally accepted the bitter reality that the simplemindedness of the electorate is simply impenetrable. Last Wednesday, the president vowed to push forward with or without the support of the unenlightened, saying, “I do not know how [health care reform] plays politically, but I know it’s right.”

To be fair, a leader proceeding against popular sentiment because he believes it’s the right thing to do does need courage. William Galston argues in The New Republic that Obama is following the example set by George W. Bush, who stayed the course in Iraq despite mounting discontent and outright opposition.

But there is a thin line between leadership and dictatorship.

Unlike the proposed health care reform, the Iraq war was well-supported in its early days. According to Pew Research, in March of 2003, when the war began, 72% of Americans thought it was the right decision to use military force. By September of 2003, 64% of Americans still believed that we should keep troops in Iraq until the country is stabilized. President Bush did not take us to war against the expressed opinion of a large majority.

It wasn’t until mid-2005 — two full years later — that the percentages of Americans for and against the war began to pull even, developing into a steady majority opposition in 2007. By then, however, it was too late to cut and run, irrespective of popular opposition, because we had assumed responsibility for tens of millions of Iraqi lives. No serious leader, including now Obama, wanted all that blood on his hands.

With health care reform, Obama still has a choice. His proposal enjoyed slight majority support in its earliest conceptual days, but that support has been steadily declining. Unlike Bush, who had an overwhelming majority behind him when he gave our troops the command to open fire in Iraq, Obama — if he signs this reform into law — will be consciously thwarting the clearly expressed desires of a large majority of the American people.

President Obama, the consummate politician, has a lighter touch than the pundits. He knows that he can’t justify his belligerence by calling us stupid. In his impromptu press conference on February 9, he went instead with the also-fashionable sausage-making metaphor: “[T]he process … actually contaminates how [people] view the substance of the bills.”

Yes, sausage-making is ugly, but the hot dog is an American institution. We really don’t care much about — and would rather not see — how the sausage was made, so long as we like the way it tastes.

With the chains of tyranny fresh and heavy on their minds, the founding fathers designed a system that makes it hard for our elected officials to make sweeping intrusions into our lives. Sometimes — especially when times are tough and passions are inflamed — this style of government gets noisy, messy, and frustratingly ponderous, just as the founding fathers intended it to be.

Washington is not broken, we are not ungovernable savages, and we don’t have weak stomachs — it’s the sausage, stupid.

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

Are You Dizzy Yet?

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:56:14 +0000

‘END’ OF THE ‘END GAME’ OR ‘THE END’?

TODAY: Obama pushing on health care end game (AP)

Last year:

July 28: Healthcare endgame on Capitol Hill (Reuters)

August 21: Analysis: Health care endgame near but uncertain (AP)

October 14: Senate, administration begin healthcare endgame as Dem leaders express unity (Hill)

October 25: Senators say health care bill endgame is in sight (Politico)

October 27: End Game: So When Will Health Care Really Happen? (TPM)

October 30: Health reform inches closer to endgame (WaPo)

November 23: The Health Care Endgame (NPR)

HUMOR

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:51:41 +0000

The Haircut

One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, “I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The florist was pleased and left the shop.

When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a “thank you” card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a police officer came in for a haircut and, when he tried to pay his bill, the barber again replied, “I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The officer was happy and left the shop.

The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a “thank you” card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

A Congressman came in for a haircut and, when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, “I can not accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The Congressman was very happy and left the shop.

The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut. And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.

http://patriotpost.us/

Being Free vs. Living Under Tyranny

scribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:46:09 +0000

Brief, Patriot Post, March 8, 2010

The Foundation

“No man in his senses can hesitate in choosing to be free, rather than a slave.”
–Alexander Hamilton

Liberty

“While American politicians and intellectuals have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision. Tyrants denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are the chief supporters of reduced private property rights, reduced rights to profits, and they are anti-competition and pro-monopoly. They are pro-control and coercion, by the state. These Americans who run Washington, and their intellectual supporters, believe they have superior wisdom and greater intelligence than the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Like any other tyrant, they have what they consider good reasons for restricting the freedom of others. A tyrant’s primary agenda calls for the elimination or attenuation of the market. Why? Markets imply voluntary exchange and tyrants do not trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. Therefore, they seek to replace the market with economic planning and regulation, which is little more than the forcible superseding of other people’s plans by the powerful elite. We Americans have forgotten founder Thomas Paine’s warning that ‘Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.’”

–George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams

http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/03/08/brief/