http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379#

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted asked that this letter be read at all Masses this weekend. This effort to alert the faithful is being conducted nationwide through the coordination of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and addresses a vital issue regarding religious liberty and our fundamental rights as U.S. Catholic citizens.

Read the letter in English. (Updated Jan. 30, 2012: Higher-quality version of the letter)

 January 25, 2012

Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people – the Catholic population – and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the insurance policies they write. Almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their health insurance plans.

In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. As a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

Therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Pray the rosary, asking Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, Patroness of our Nation, to intercede for us. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience, to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration’s decision.

United in prayer and in confidence in God’s mercy, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+ Thomas J. Olmsted

Bishop of Phoenix

http://www.breitbart.tv/new-hampshires-ayotte-first-woman-senator-to-condemn-obamas-contraception-law/

]]> http://brownpelicanla.com/archives/85285/feed 0 http://brownpelicanla.com/archives/85282 http://brownpelicanla.com/archives/85282#comments Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:09:03 +0000 scribe http://brownpelicanla.com/?p=85282 .
Speaking with Salem Radio’s Hugh Hewitt, Catholic Bishop Thomas Olmsted from the Phoenix Archdiocese discusses American Catholics and voting for president in relation to the recent rule set forth by the Obama Administration forcing religious hospitals to pay for contraception to patients.
.

.

http://www.breitbart.tv/bishop-catholics-will-be-instructed-how-to-vote/

The Time Is Now Defend Religious Liberty for All

By Chuck Colson, February 7, 2012

This is a special broadcast. To maintain religious liberty, citizens must be eternally vigilant. Today, our freedom is in grave peril. Chuck Colson draws a line in the sand.

,

.

MANHATTAN DECLARATION: A CALL OF CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE

http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

]]> http://brownpelicanla.com/archives/85271/feed 0 http://brownpelicanla.com/archives/85256 http://brownpelicanla.com/archives/85256#comments Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:38:09 +0000 scribe http://brownpelicanla.com/?p=85256 SOURCE:  By Charles Colson, Catholic Exchange, January 30th, 2012

EXCERPT:

I’m reminded of the famous saying of German pastor Martin Niemoeller, referring to the horrors of Nazi Germany:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I
did not speak out — Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I did not speak out — Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did
not speak out — Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was
no one left to speak for me.”

Folks, all Christians speak out against this latest attack — and every attack — on religious liberty. Please, I plead with you, sign — and get your friends to sign — the Manhattan Declaration in support of religious liberty. Do it today at ManhattanDeclaration.org.

Because pretty soon no one will be left to speak out for us.

This update courtesy of BreakPoint.

http://catholicexchange.com/2012/01/30/141872/

Mitt Romney is vociferously attacking a provision in Obamacare requiring religious employers to cover birth control in employee health plans — but the healthcare bill he enacted as governor of Massachusetts also contained that requirement.

C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, told the Boston Globe that Romney’s criticism of President Obama is hypocritical because as governor he did not lift the state-level requirement of contraception coverage.

“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration, but from the Romney administration,” Doyle said.

“President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Gov. Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.”

On a presidential campaign swing in Colorado, Romney told a crowd on Monday night that the Obama administration “said that the churches and institutions they run, such as schools and adoption agencies, hospitals, that they have to provide for their employees free of charge contraceptives, morning after pills — in other words abortive pills and the like — at no cost.

“Think what that does to people who are in faiths that do not share those views. This is a violation of conscience.”

Romney GOP presidential rival Newt Gingrich also has attacked Romney over the birth control provision.

“The Obama administration is raging a war against the Catholic Church,” Gingrich said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” last week. “Well guess what? Mitt Romney’s Romneycare — he specifically refused to exempt Catholic hospitals, he specifically cut funding for kosher meals for Jewish senior citizens in Medicaid in Massachusetts.

“There are a lot of parallels between these two guys. Romneycare and Obamacare are essentially the same.”

Gingrich also has gone after Romney for including Planned Parenthood “in the language of his healthcare plan in Massachusetts,” Politico reported.

Gingrich said: “In the long run, the Republican Party is not going to nominate the founder of Romneycare, a liberal Republican who is pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-tax increase.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Romneycare-Obamacare-Catholic-birth/2012/02/07/id/428686

16 “Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves. 17 But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues, 18and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans. 19When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say. You will be given at that moment what you are to say. 20For it will not be you who speak but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. 22You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end^* will be saved. 23When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. 24 No disciple is above his teacher, no slave above his master. 25It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, for the slave that he become like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more those of his household!

http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/10

Obama Signals He May Back Down On Contraception Mandate

By Martin Gould, NewsMax, 07 Feb 2012

Roman Catholic pressure to get the Obama administration to back down from its insistence that they provide free contraceptives in their healthcare plans appeared to be paying off on Tuesday.

Now the White House may be ready to work with the church to find a way to get around the mandate, said David Axelrod, a top adviser to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

“I think we need to lower our voices and get together,” Axelrod told MSNBC’s Morning Joe.

“We certainly don’t want to abridge anyone’s religious freedoms, so we’re going to look for a way to move forward that both provides women with the preventative care that they need and respects the prerogatives of religious institutions.”

“The president and the administration will move forward, but with a grace period or time period in order to work this thing through,” Axelrod added. “We want to resolve it in an appropriate way.”

Axelrod said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had already given churches an exemption to the mandate, against the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine. “The question now is about these extended affiliated institutions … and there are tens of thousands – hundreds of thousands – of women who work in these hospitals and universities who are not Catholic or they may be Catholic and they use birth control.

“The question is whether they are going to have the same package that every other woman in the country has to the same right and access to basic preventive care.”

Axelrod’s stance was in stark contrast to the message put out by White House press secretary Jay Carney less than 24 hours earlier.
“These services are important,” Carney said on Monday. “American women deserve to have access to that kind of insurance coverage regardless of where they work.”

The administration’s insistence that religious organizations provide insurance that covers contraceptives – including abortifacients such as the morning-after pill – has led to claims that Obama is anti-religion. Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism in 2008, said last week, “The Obama administration is raging a war against the Catholic Church.”

Fellow Catholic candidate Rick Santorum said the (Catholic) church should have fought harder against the whole Affordable Health Care Act. “I told the Catholic bishops years ago when they were … promoting Obamacare, be careful what you wish for,” he said. “They got what they deserved.”

Catholic bishops wrote letters that were read to parishioners from the pulpit over the weekend. “We cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law,” was the message in the letter from many of the bishops. “People of faith cannot be made second-class citizens.”

Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops likened the regulation to forcing a Jewish deli to sell pork chops while Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York said, “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City went so far as saying the church may drop healthcare coverage altogether if a way cannot be found out of the impasse.

But whether the bishops have the backing of their followers is unclear. A USA Today poll released Tuesday showed that 58 percent of Catholics support compulsory contraceptive insurance. That figure rose to 62 percent among Catholic women.

Sebelius revealed the plan in late January, saying it would help guarantee universal access to birth control under Obama’s signature healthcare laws. The mandate is due to go into effect during 2013.

“The public health case for making sure insurance covers contraception is clear,” Sebelius wrote in an article in USA Today. She claimed the administration had worked to strike a balance between the rights of religious employers and the healthcare needs of their workers.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-catholics-contraception-mandate/2012/02/07/id/428695

Obama tells 8th grader, inventor of the Marshmallow cannon: “I’ll keep your card ‘just in case’ “
.

.

READ STORY: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obamas-inner-geek-robots-to-flying-marshmallows/

.
*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Michelle Obama and Jimmy Fallon hula hoop, do push-ups and run around the White House

CLICK TO WATCH: Michelle and Fallon Play Chase and tug of war

In celebration of her “Let’s Move!” campaign to curb childhood obesity First Lady Michelle Obama engaged in a “fitness challenge” with “Late Night” host Jimmy Fallon. In the White House. In an official photo provided by the White House Michelle Obama is seen competing in a tug of war with Fallon in the Diplomatic Reception Room.

The two also hula hoop, do push-ups and run around the White House.

Last week, the First Lady visited the set of the “Tonight Show” and made Jay Leno eat exclusive healthy food from the White House. Michelle Obama also competed in a push-up contest with Ellen DeGeneres during the Los Angeles leg of her trip.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/07/michelle_obama_plays_tug_of_war_with_late_night_host_in_the_white_house.html

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, admitted Tuesday that the “seeds” of Romneycare can be found in Obamacare.

“Were there seeds for these policy ideas in Massachusetts? Sure I think there were,” Ryan told CNSNews.com Tuesday, during a conference call to preview a major address he will give later this week to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington

But Ryan said that presidential hopeful Mitt Romney “has done a pretty good job of suggesting” that he would not impose on the national level any individual mandate requiring people to purchase health insurance.

Moreover, regardless of whomever becomes the GOP nominee, Ryan said, “We’re not going there” — meaning that Republicans would not support imposing an individual mandate

CNSNews.com had asked Ryan:

“Congressman, a lot of people, including President Obama, have said that Romneycare, which mandates people buy health insurance and provides subsidies for up to 300 percent of poverty level, was the model for Obamacare. Do you agree?”

Ryan replied: “Well the mandate is, I’d say – first of all, I think Mitt Romney’s done a pretty good job of suggesting that he wouldn’t do that at the federal level, he clearly is against Obamacare. I don’t think mandates – first of all I don’t think they’re constitutional, especially at the federal level. And so, what matters is whover our nominee is, whether its Mitt or Rick or Newt, that they’re opposed to Obamacare.”

LISTEN TO INTERVIEW:  http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-paul-ryan-there-were-seeds-romneycare-obamacare

Ryan said the Congress had spent the last year “passing various versions of repeal of Obamacare.”

“We’re going to show how we would not only repeal, but replace Obamacare. Clearly, I think the Supreme Court, I’m knocking on wood here, is going to strike down – I’m hoping and thinking – the individual mandate. So were there seeds of these policy ideas in Massachusetts? Sure. I think there were.

“But I think it’s very clear that we’re not going there – meaning we’re not going to take the country down that path. We disagree with that policy architecture. I think the policy architecture of Obamacare has to be pulled out root, branch, and everything if we’re going to save this country.”

Ryan said if we don’t “fix” the health issue, the nation can’t solve the debt crisis.

“The debt crisis really is a health care issue,” he told CNSNews.com. “And the question we have before us is whether or not we go back to toward a market-based consumer-directed health-care reforms where the individual patient is in the nucleus of the health-care system, or we go down the path of a government-run and rationed program. That’s really the choice we have in front of us.

“And again, I think be whoever our nominee is going to be perfectly capable of carrying this torch, especially if House Republicans are already advancing this torch and blazing that trail, which is exactly what we intend on doing.”

Romneycare, the Massachusetts health-care insurance reform law created in 2006, mandates that almost every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of health-care insurance coverage.

It provides total insurance subsidies – free coverage — for residents earning less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level – and partial subsidies for those earning up to 300 percent of poverty level.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-paul-ryan-there-were-seeds-romneycare-obamacare

   By Phyllis Schlafly, Catholic Exchange, February 8th, 2012

The reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 2 on a straight party-line vote. That proves again that the feminists control the Democratic Party, and it’s also a refreshing indication that Republicans are no longer intimidated by feminist demands.

VAWA was originally passed by Congress in 1994, with Bill Clinton pushing the law as a payoff to the feminists for supporting his election as president. Joe Biden claims credit as a major sponsor and likes to say it is the legislation he is most proud of.

In its 17 years of operation, it has done little or no good for real victims of domestic violence, while its funds have been used to fill feminist coffers and to lobby for feminist objectives and laws. Although every spending bill should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud, VAWA has somehow ducked accountability for the nearly billion dollars a year it doles out to radical feminist organizations.

Despite rigid feminist dogma that there are no gender differences, VAWA is totally grounded in feminist-created gender stereotypes. Starting with its title, Violence Against Women, its fundamental assumption is that men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims.

In other words, men are always guilty, and women must always be believed without fear of being punished for perjury. VAWA assumes there is no violence against men, and it doesn’t provide services for men who are victims of domestic violence.

The feminists have so broadened the definition of domestic violence that it doesn’t have to be violent and can usually be whatever a woman alleges. Definitions of domestic violence include vague and overbroad concepts such as emotional distress, harassment, annoyance or merely unpleasant speech.

Feminist recipients of VAWAs handouts use the money to train legislators, judges and prosecutors in feminist ideology and goals. This has resulted in dozens of state laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone, so guess who) and no-drop prosecution (i.e., the man must be prosecuted even in the large percentage of cases where the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).

Instead of promoting divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men, VAWA should be revised to encourage counseling when appropriate and voluntary. Some VAWA money should be used for programs to help couples terminate use of illegal drugs and reduce the use of alcohol.

Any man who is accused of domestic violence effectively loses a long list of constitutional rights accorded to ordinary criminals. These include due process, presumption that he is innocent until proven guilty, equal treatment under the law, right to a fair trial, right to confront his accusers, freedom of speech, right to privacy in family matters, custody or visitation with his own children, and even the right to bear arms.

The woman is provided with legal representation even though she has not presented any evidence of injury or harm. The man gets no such help.

About a fourth of divorces involve an allegation of domestic violence, which in many cases is false or without any evidence. Those allegations usually result in the issuance of restraining orders that the Illinois Bar Association has referred to as “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

It’s no surprise that VAWA is often referred to as the hate-men law. The attitude of many judges and prosecutors who have been trained by the feminists with VAWA funds was expressed by one New Jersey judge whose extravagant statement was even reported in the New Jersey Law Journal: “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’”

Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even though no evidence of abuse is presented. This usually results in the complete severing of the child’s relationship with his or her father.

VAWA should be completely revised to provide meaningful definitions of domestic violence that are specific enough to identify real victims, to stop the over-criminalization of minor partner discord, to emphasize counseling rather than incarceration, to assure that training programs for prosecutors and judges are objective, to assure accountability by tracking the large flow of taxpayers’ money, to respect fathers’ rights, to inspect shelters, to evaluate success and fairness, and to develop programs to address the common problem of mutual partner abuse.

If VAWA is not reformed to respect constitutional rights, it will turn out to be a major embarrassment to all members of Congress who vote for it.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst, and author of 20 books. Her latest, written with co-author Suzanne Venker, is The Flipside of Feminism, published in March by WorldNetDaily. She can be contacted by e-mail at phyllis@eagleforum.org

http://catholicexchange.com/2012/02/08/142862/

  By Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews, February 8, 2012

You can now divide Americans into two groups: Those who believe government rightfully has the power to force people to purchase goods and services they do not want and those who don’t.

Among the former are two subgroups: Those who believe only state governments have this coercive power and those who believe the federal government has it, too.

President Barack Obama is in the latter subgroup. He signed a health care law that forces Americans to purchase health insurance.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is in the former subgroup. He signed a health care law that forces people in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance.

In a debate last August on Fox News, Romney tried to explain his constitutional vision on when and where government can coerce people to buy goods and services they don’t want.

Host Chris Wallace asked Romney: “Do you think that government at any level has the right to make someone buy a good or service just because they are a U.S. resident? Where do you find that authority, that mandating authority, government making an individual buy a good or service, in the Constitution?”

Romney initially seemed confused and answered an unasked question about Obamacare.

“The answer is, I think, you have to repeal Obamacare, and I will, and I’ll put in place a plan that allows states to craft their own programs to make those programs work,” said Romney.

“But, sir,” said Wallace, “I’m asking you where you find that authority in the Constitution.”

Romney responded: “Where do I find it in the Constitution? Are you familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution? I am. And the Massachusetts Constitution allows states, for instance, to say that our kids have to go to school. It has that power. The question is: Is that a good idea or bad idea?”

Note that Romney did not directly say: The Massachusetts Constitution authorizes the government to force people to buy health insurance or any other good or service. He defended forcing adults to buy health insurance by saying Massachusetts can constitutionally force children to go to school.

Supposing it is true that the Massachusetts Constitution authorizes the state government to force children to go to school, how is that relevant to the question of whether it authorizes the state to force adults to purchase health insurance? Is telling a 13-year-old girl she must attend the eighth grade the same as telling a 32-year-old woman she must buy health insurance? Are both covered by the same provision in the Massachusetts Constitution? If so, what is that provision?

The word “insurance” does not appear in the Massachusetts Constitution. However, that Constitution’s “Declaration of Rights” says: “All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”

How does a mandate that forces a man to surrender some of his liberty and some of his property in purchasing a government-approved health-insurance policy comport with the natural rights to liberty and property expressly protected by the Massachusetts Constitution?

Remember, Romney told Wallace at the Fox News debate: “The question is: Is that a good idea or bad idea?”

Is Romney arguing, then, that when the government of Massachusetts decides to coerce a citizen into buying a good or service that person does not want, the relevant question is whether a majority of the state legislature and the governor agree that it is a good idea for that person to be compelled to buy that product?

If so, what limit is there on the power of the state government to compel individuals to buy things they don’t want? Why couldn’t the legislature simply prescribe exactly how an individual must spend his after-tax income? For example: 20 percent on housing, 15 percent on food, 12 percent on transportation, etc.

More to the point:v

In fact, when Romney enacted his Massachusetts health care law he complained on more than one occasion that one of the mandated insurance benefits under the program was in vitro fertilization.

“There are a number of things I think could be done better,” he told David Asman of Fox Business Network last year.

“Like?” said Asman.

“For instance, I vetoed a provision in it that said insurance offered in our state has to have all sorts of mandates, mandated coverages,” said Romney.

“You have to include … everything from in vitro fertilization to unlimited chiropractic and so forth. I said, no, no, no. Let the private market sort those things out. But, if you will, my Democratic friends said no, no, no, we want to mandate these things.”

As Romney himself might have put it, the Democrats thought it was a “good idea.”

The Catholic Church teaches that in vitro fertilization — in which human embryos are created outside the womb and frozen for future use — is not just a bad idea, it is profoundly immoral. But in Massachusetts, Catholics have to buy insurance that covers (in vitro fertilization) because their state government thinks it is a good idea.

On the federal level, Obama has now decided to force Catholics to buy health insurance that covers sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and abortifacients — all of which the church teaches are immoral.

Is Obama wrong here because he is usurping a power reserved for the states?

No, he and Romney are both wrong. They are wrong because the idea that government — at any level — can force a person to buy something against his will is not only a bad idea, it is repugnant to the foundational idea of our republic: that we all have a God-given right to liberty.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffrey/did-mass-constitution-authorize-romney-mandate-health-insurance

The American public’s dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

The conservative think tank’s annual Index of Dependence on Government tracks money spent on housing, health, welfare, education subsidies and other federal programs that were “traditionally provided to needy people by local organizations and families.”

The increase under Obama is the biggest two-year jump since Jimmy Carter was president, the data show.

The rise was driven mainly by increases in housing subsidies, an expansion in Medicaid and changes to the welfare system, along with a sharp rise in food stamps, the study found.

“You can’t get around the fact that policy decisions made over the past two years, on top of those made over the past several decades, are having a large effect on the pace of growth of the index,” said William Beach, who authored the Heritage study.

Dependence on the government has climbed steadily since 1962, when the index stood at 19. By 1980, the index had risen to 100. It stood at 294 in 2010, the last year for which the data are available. The D.C.-based Heritage Foundation has produced the index for nine years.

The report also found that spending on “dependence programs” accounts for more than 70% of the federal budget. That, too, is up dramatically. In 1990, for example, the figure stood at 48.5%, and in 1962 just over a quarter of federal spending went to dependence programs.

At the same time, fewer Americans pay income taxes, the report notes. Almost half (49.5%) didn’t pay income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which the researchers have data. Back in the late 1960s, only 12% of Americans escaped the income tax burden.

Other findings:

The number of people dependent on the federal government shot up 7.5% over the past two years.

In 2010, for the first time ever, average spending on dependence programs per recipient exceeded the country’s per-capita disposable income.

The dependency index has dipped only seven times in the past 49 years, three of which were under President Reagan and two under President Clinton.

Some observers say the rise in dependence under Obama is merely a reflection of the deep and long recession.

But Beach says his team’s research shows that economic effects account for only one-fifth of the change in the index.

http://news.investors.com/Article/600452/201202080802/government-dependence-jumps-under-president-obama.htm

During his victory speech in Missouri, Rick Santorum spoke passionately about religious freedom and targeted the Obama Administration’s controversial policy of forcing Catholic hospitals to purchase contraception for patients.
.
.
.

http://www.breitbart.tv/calling-all-catholics-santorum-campaigns-on-obamacare-contraception-controversy/

]]> http://brownpelicanla.com/archives/85146/feed 0 http://brownpelicanla.com/archives/85141 http://brownpelicanla.com/archives/85141#comments Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:20:19 +0000 scribe http://brownpelicanla.com/?p=85141 Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, Feb. 7, 2012

Churches Walk a Fined Line

People in Pennsylvania were shocked to hear that Shippensburg University is selling the morning-after pill in campus vending machines. It’s a shocking way to normalize a drug like Plan B, which can abort a pregnancy in its earliest stage. Starting next year, President Obama’s team has an equally outrageous way of dispensing the pills: ordering religious schools, hospitals, and charities to pay for them. Under his insurance mandate, faith-based groups will be the administration’s new vending machines, forced to dish out drugs and procedures that clash with their most fundamental beliefs.

And if they refuse? The Wall Street Journal estimates that the penalties to an organization of Catholic Charities’ size could be as much as $140 million a year in fines. “That means millions less for struggling families, for refugees, for the sick and elderly and for the other needy Americans who benefit from their good works.” The rest of America wouldn’t be off the hook either. “This is far more than a ‘Catholic’ issue. At a minimum, it means higher taxes and less efficiency for all if the government picks up the slack.” One in six U.S. hospitals has Catholic ties, and if the church is as serious about resisting the policy as it says it is, that would mean a massive void in medical care. The government–and by extension, taxpayers–would have to shoulder even more of the financial burden.

But the faith community won’t go quietly. Yesterday, Catholic League President Bill Donahue said he is willing to bring the church’s 70 million voters to bear on the President in November if the mandate isn’t overturned. “Never before, unprecedented in American history, [has] the federal government line[d] up against the Roman Catholic Church,” he said. One hundred sixty-eight Catholic bishops are going to the mat on the rule, about 90% of all U.S. dioceses. And more than 154 Congressmen are lining up beside them, thanks to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). Dozens of Republicans and Democrats signed his letter to the White House, demanding the President reconsider. “This radical mandate… is an attack on the religious freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by the Bill of Rights. Religious organizations and hard-working taxpayers should not be forced by the federal government to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, or sterilizations in their health care plans… I’m proud to stand with the vast majority of Americans who respect religious freedom in demanding that this mandate be reversed.”

Faced with red-hot opposition–even within the administration–White House spokesman Jay Carney hinted Monday at a possible modification to the policy. But if this is anything like the administration’s “compromise” over taxpayer-funded abortion in ObamaCare, the church should know better than cutting a deal. When the White House is ordering Americans to choose between government and God, nothing but a complete repeal will do.

http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/churches-walk-a-fined-line

By Peter J. Colosi, Catholic Exchange, Feb. 7, 2012

.

In the January 25, 2012 First Things A Time for Catholic Action and Catholic Voices, Archbishop José H. Gomez of Los Angeles argues against the recent HHS mandate that every U.S. employer must provide health insurance coverage for birth control, sterilization, and even abortion-causing drugs. As of this writing 145 Bishops have also made excellent similar statements. One recurring theme I find in these articles is expressed by Bishop Gomez when he states: “But the issues here go far beyond contraception and far beyond the liberties of the Catholic Church.” He goes on to argue for our national identity and a true notion of freedom of religion.

His arguments are good ones, and I, like many Catholics, am thrilled to see the bishops making such strong statements on the issues. Nonetheless, I do want to raise one simple question, not as a challenge, but as a way to bolster the cause: Why downplay the question of contraception? Why not seize this moment to engage the culture with boldness on the issue? Pope Benedict, quoted by Bishop Gomez, urged the US Bishops just days before the HHS ruling that the presentation of “a convincing articulation of the Christian vision of man and society” is “a primary task of the Church in your country.” Does not this very moment represent the proverbial “teaching moment”? The entire country has just now had the idea jostled about in their minds that the Catholic Church thinks something about contraception; and I might add, it may be the first time in a while that Catholics have thought of it as well. St. Peter urges, “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope.” (1 Pt 3:15). In contrast, Thomas Merton warned, in No Man is an Island, that “One of the moral diseases we communicate to one another in society comes from huddling together in the pale light of an insufficient answer to a question we are afraid to ask.” At this moment will we take the route urged by St. Peter and Pope Benedict or the route predicted by Thomas Merton?

Furthermore, a main argument against the Bishops goes that the Catholic view is a religious position, and since many employees at Catholic hospitals and universities are not Catholic, those employees’ insurance should cover their contraception. As used in that argument the term “religious” implies the meaning “irrational.” And so, if the Bishops grant the point that it is exclusively a religious reason and move directly to questions of national identity, this will be perceived as a tacit acceptance by the Bishops of the hidden premise that to oppose contraception is irrational.

The reasons for Church teaching on procreation are well-founded and full of common sense, and now is the moment to explain them to fellow Catholics who may be foggy on the issue, as well as to those non-Catholics whose ears are currently perked up. Will we as a Church (Bishops, priests and laity) use this moment not only to assert our view that contraception is immoral, but also to explain the reasons? Or will we remain silent, skirting the real issue at hand?

For those who want to take the former path, there are very many solid resources out there for making the case philosophically. My own modest contribution to this effort is here.

Peter J. Colosi taught for nine years for Franciscan University of Steubenville at their program in Gaming, Austria as assistant professor of philosophy. In the fall of 2009, he joined the faculty at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, Pennsylvania as assistant professor of moral theology. He earned his BS in mathematics from Franciscan University, an MA in Franciscan Studies from St. Bonaventure University, and his MPhil and PhD from the International Academy of Philosophy in the Principality of Liechtenstein.

http://catholicexchange.com/2012/02/07/142703/

ATLANTA, GA – After a week of bruising rhetoric and intense pressure from Planned Parenthood, Karen Handel resigned from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation this morning.

Pro-abortion organizations pressured the private charity to fire Handel as vice president for public policy and publicly said she instigated the decision to defund the abortion provider.

Karen Handel

This afternoon, she broke her silence.

Speaking to Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly, Handel said the Komen foundation was subjected to an unprecedented attack by the nation’s leading provider of abortion. “What was unleashed over this past week was a vicious attack against a great organization and…individual attacks against [Komen founder] Nancy Brinker, an individual whom I admire greatly – and I would think all of us should be saddened that an outside org should put this kind of pressure on another organization.”

“The last time I checked, private non-profit organizations have a right and a responsibility to be able to set the highest standards and criteria on their own without interference, let alone the level of vicious attacks and coercion that has occurred by Planned Parenthood. It’s simply outrageous,” she said.

The intimidation campaign led Handel to resign from the foundation and decline a severance package. “I was too much of a focal point,” she said. “I really felt I had a responsibility to just step aside so they could refocus on their mission.”

Handel ran for governor of Georgia in 2010 on a pro-life platform and publicly described herself as a Christian. Pro-abortion forces highlighted her candidacy, claiming Komen was bowing to political pressure – an allegation Handel strongly rejected. “Absolutely not,” she said. “For Komen, for myself the mission was always foremost on our mind.”

“The only group here that has made this issue political has been Planned Parenthood,” she said.

Some are finding discrepancies between her interview and statements made last week by Nancy Brinker.

“I clearly acknowledge that I was involved in the process, but to say I had the sole authority is simply absurd,” Handel told Fox News.

But Laura Bassett of The Huffington Post wrote, “Handel’s statement directly contradicts what Komen executives have been telling the public since the decision was announced last week.”

Komen founder and CEO Nancy Brinker had told MSNBC’s Andrea Mtichell on Thursday that “Karen did not have anything to do with this decision.”

““This was decided at the board level and also by our mission.”

In her resignation letter Handel wrote “the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen.” She told Megyn Kelly she “was asked to look at options” to distance Komen from an organization that was mired in controversy “long before my time” and had since come under Congressional investigation.

Clarifying the explanations Komen gave last week, Handel said the investigation was not the only reason Komen had reduced its grants to the abortion provider. “I think the Congressional investigation, along with the various state investigations, were a factor in the decision,” she said. “But make no mistake about it, it was a bigger picture than that. There was the granting criteria, as well as the controversies that were surrounding Planned Parenthood.”

Despite her resignation, Handel had only positive words for the Komen foundation, its mission, and its personnel. She repeatedly declined to provide internal details about how the Planned Parenthood decision had been made, saying she hopes her decision to step down will aid the foundation’s efforts to combat breast cancer.

“I wanted to do the right thing on my own terms, and that’s what I tried to do.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fmr-komen-vp-blasts-planned-parenthoods-vicious-attacks-and-coercion

Santorum said that “tonight was a victory for the voices of our party, conservatives and Tea Party… who are out there every single day… building the conservative movement in this country… building the base of the Republican Party and building a voice for freedom in this land.”

.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49383

Rick Santorum won three contests on Tuesday in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado, showing how difficult it may be for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to seal the deal in winning the GOP nomination and how tough it will be for Romney to win over conservatives. It also provided Santorum with a tremendous opportunity to potentially emerge as the chief anti-Rommey alternative.

“Conservatism is alive and well,” Santorum said to open his speech he gave on Tuesday night as he hoped to be the conservative standard bearer in this primary season. Santorum also took an aggressive stance against Obama, reiterating his belief that a bold contrast was needed with Obama in the fall for a Republican to emerge as the victor. Santorum said Obama was someone who did not listen to the American people when it came to bailouts, ObamaCare and cap and trade, and called Obama someone who “thinks he knows better” than the American people.

“Did he listen to you?,” Santorum asked.

“No, because he thinks he knows better,” Santorum replied.

He also linked Mitt Romney directly to Obama, saying that Romney was no different from Obama on “health care, the environment, cap and trade, and on the Wall Street bailouts”

“I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” Santorum said. “I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”

Santorum said that Romney’s selling point was that he had the best organization to defeat Obama in the fall and insinuated that Romney’s organization may not match Obama’s re-election machine.

“This is an election fundamentally about the kind of country you’re going to hand off to your children and grandchildren, whether they are going to have the level of freedom and opportunity that you have,” Santorum said.

Santorum said that “tonight was a victory for the voices of our party, conservatives and Tea Party… who are out there every single day… building the conservative movement in this country… building the base of the Republican Party and building a voice for freedom in this land.”

Santorum, along with Gingrich and Romney, will speak to these party-building activists at CPAC on Friday in an event that just became much more important in light of Santorum’s convincing Tuesday victories.

Going forward. here are five things to look at:

1. Can Santorum finally get his turn in the spotlight and emerge as the last anti-Romney candidate standing?

2. Can Romney get enough conservatives on board to actually lock-up the nomination?

3. If Santorum gains enough support that ensures he will not fade below a certain number and if Gingrich maintains his level of support, along with Ron Paul, who gave another passionate speech for liberty and less government intervention abroad and domestically, could there actually be a brokered convention?

4. Will Romney start to attack Santorum and will Santorum respond in kind? If so, is there an opening for another Gingrich revival?

5.  Can any of the candidates generate enough enthusiasm to the point where people are actually voting for them instead of merely voting against Obama?

Tony Lee edits The Chase 2012 section and writes on politics and culture for HUMAN EVENTS. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook. E-mail: ALEE (at) EaglePub.com

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49383

Bishop Vasa, Courageous Priest, Feb. 2012

California Catholic Daily: When Sonoma County Pro-Life advertised its annual Rally for Life held last Sunday, it promised that its keynote speaker — Santa Rosa Bishop Robert Vasa — “is sure to challenge and inspire us all.” Bishop Vasa did not let them down.

“Any government leader, particularly those who claim to be Christian, who claim to be pro-choice, is unworthy of public office,” Bishop Vasa told the rally at Old Courthouse Square in Santa Rosa on Jan. 22. “Absolutely unworthy and absolutely unfit for public office.”

Politicians who support abortion are “as guilty of abortion as those who choose it themselves,” he said. And Roe v. Wade, said Bishop Vasa, was an “illicit and invalid” decision.

Because of its pro-abortion policies, said Bishop Vasa, the U.S. is no longer “the land of the free and the home of the brave. It’s a land of the imprisoned and the home of the cowards.”

The bishop’s remarks, reported the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, brought cheers from a crowd of about 100 people who gathered in the afternoon rain to hear his speech.

“Vasa suggested such leaders who publicly hold such a position shouldn’t accept communion at Mass,” reported the Press Democrat. “He also said they could be excommunicated, or banished from the church through their actions.”

“In some ways, they excommunicate themselves,” the Press Democrat quoted the bishop as saying in an interview following his speech.

“If he learned a politician expressed a position so out of line with Catholic beliefs, then he would first try to have a ‘face-to-face’ with that person and urge them to recant their remarks,” said the Press Democrat. “If they did not, then that person would be ‘on thin ice.’”

According to the Press Democrat, Bishop Vasa conceded that the Church “tends to resist” the explicit excommunication of pro-abortion Catholics, but in an apparent reference to automatic self-excommunication, the bishop was quoted by the newspaper as saying, “I, for one, if someone wants to put hot coals on their own head, I say fine.”

http://www.courageouspriest.com/catholic-pro-abortion-politcians-excommunicated

…“the bigger government is, the less happy societies tend to be. There is a direct relationship, stripping everything else out, between the government allowing people more freedom and well-being increasing.”….

   By John Stossel, Human Events, 02/08/2012

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the pursuit of happiness an unalienable right. This was a radical idea. For most of history, most people didn’t think much about pursuing happiness. They were too busy just trying to survive.

Then came the liberal revolution based on the idea of individual freedom. Only then did they start thinking that happiness might be possible on earth.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the right to pursue happiness has been perverted into a government-backed entitlement to happiness.

British Prime Minister David Cameron says, “There’s more to life than money. … It’s time we focus not just on GDP, but GWB — general well-being.”

Well-being sounds good. But is that something that government programs promote?

Philip Booth, an economist with London’s Institute of Economic Affairs and editor of “… And the Pursuit of Happiness,” says no. I spoke recently with Booth and economist Christopher Coyne of George Mason University, who contributed to that volume.

Since the country of Bhutan got all kinds of publicity by using a measure it calls “gross national happiness” instead of gross national product, and The New York Times says it’s a “new measure of well-being from a happy little kingdom,” I asked them if there is anything to it.

“It’s not a model that most Western societies would want to copy,” Booth said.

I didn’t think so. In Bhutan, people can get locked up for criticizing the government. Yet one study ranked the United States 23rd in the list of happy places. Bhutan was higher on the list.

That’s nonsense, said Coyne. It makes more sense to judge a country’s ability to make its citizens happy by whether foreigners want to move there. Clearly, more people want to move to America than to Bhutan. “The way to think about this,” Coyne said, “is the fact that so many people want to come to the United States indicates that they at least perceive there is the opportunity to pursue what makes them happy.”

What does make people happy? People fantasize about leisure and luxury, but the best data show that such things don’t create lasting happiness. What does make for happiness is obtaining work that allows you to move toward goals that you find meaningful. In other words, what’s important is not just employment, but purposeful work. So is having control over your workplace. Chrysler found that if workers have more control on the assembly line, they are happier. The freedom to decide your own goals is crucial.

Other things that make people happy are religion, having family and friends you care about, giving to others (face to face or via charity) and money.

Actually, money makes you happier if you’re miserably poor. But once you have a certain amount — maybe enough that you no longer have to worry about your family’s well-being — more money doesn’t make much difference. Lottery winners report that, a year after their windfall, they were no happier than they were before.

That’s counterintuitive. Instinct tells us that wealth brings happiness. It’s a reason why some people envy the rich and why income inequality causes lots of angst today. One left-wing journalist writes, “Every model shows the most unequal societies are the least happy.”

“There’s no evidence that this is true,” Coyne said. “Even the staunchest proponents of government intervention to increase happiness admit that there’s no relationship.”

You wouldn’t know that reading The New York Times.

The mainstream media claim that the way to make people happy is to have government protect them from misfortune and give them stuff. The research doesn’t bear that out, says Booth.

“In fact, the bigger government is, the less happy societies tend to be. There is a direct relationship, stripping everything else out, between the government allowing people more freedom and well-being increasing.”

Yet politicians move in the other direction. The socialist likely to be France’s next president wants to lower the retirement age from 62 to 60 and institute a “maximum-work” law.

When will they learn that you don’t make people happier by taking their options away?

John Stossel is host of “Stossel” on the Fox Business Network. He’s the author of “Give Me a Break” and of “Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.” To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at >johnstossel.com.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49375

Governor Mitt Romney’s statement about not worrying about the poor has been treated as a gaffe in much of the media, and those in the Republican establishment who have been rushing toward endorsing his coronation as the GOP’s nominee for president — with 90 percent of the delegates still not yet chosen — have been trying to sweep his statement under the rug.

But Romney’s statement about not worrying about the poor — because they “have a very ample safety net” — was followed by a statement that was not just a slip of the tongue, and should be a defining moment in telling us about this man’s qualifications as a conservative and, more important, as a potential President of the United States.

Mitt Romney has come out in support of indexing the minimum wage law, to have it rise automatically to keep pace with inflation. To many people, that would seem like a small thing that can be left for economists or statisticians to deal with.

But to people who call themselves conservatives, and aspire to public office, there is no excuse for not being aware of what a major social disaster the minimum wage law has been for the young, the poor and especially for young and poor blacks.

It is not written in the stars that young black males must have astronomical rates of unemployment. It is written implicitly in the minimum wage laws.

We have gotten so used to seeing unemployment rates of 30 or 40 percent for black teenage males that it might come as a shock to many people to learn that the unemployment rate for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old black males was just under 10 percent back in 1948. Moreover, it was slightly lower than the unemployment rate for white males of the same age.

How could this be?

The economic reason is quite plain. The inflation of the 1940s had pushed money wages for even unskilled, entry-level labor above the level specified in the minimum wage law passed ten years earlier. In other words, there was in practical effect no national minimum wage law in the late 1940s.

My first full-time job, as a black teenage high-school dropout in 1946, was as a lowly messenger delivering telegrams. But my starting pay was more than 50 percent above the level specified in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Liberals were of course appalled that the federal minimum wage law had lagged so far behind inflation — and, in 1950, they began a series of escalations of the minimum wage level over the years.

It was in the wake of these escalations that black teenage unemployment rose to levels that were three or four times the level in 1948. Even in the most prosperous years of later times, the unemployment rate for black teenage males was some multiple of what it was even in the recession year of 1949. And now it was often double the unemployment rate for white males of the same ages.

This was not the first or the last time that liberals did something that made them feel good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake, especially among the poor whom they were supposedly helping.

For those for whom “racism” is the explanation of all racial differences, let me assure them, from personal experience, that there was not less racism in the 1940s.

For those who want to check out the statistics — and I hope that would include Mitt Romney — they can be found detailed on pages 42 to 45 of “Race and Economics” by Walter Williams.

Nor are such consequences of minimum wage laws peculiar to blacks or to the United States. In Western European countries whose social policies liberals consider more “advanced” than our own, including more generous minimum wage laws and other employer-mandated benefits, it has been common in even prosperous years for unemployment rates among young people to be 20 percent or higher.

The economic reason is not complicated. When you set minimum wage levels higher than many inexperienced young people are worth, they don’t get hired. It is not rocket science.

Milton Friedman explained all this, half a century ago, in his popular little book for non-economists, “Capitalism and Freedom.” So have many other people. If a presidential candidate who calls himself “conservative” has still not heard of these facts, that simply shows that you can call yourself anything you want to.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/thomas-sowell/2012/02/07/a-defining-moment/