EXCERPTS FROM: Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D., Bishop of Scranton

. . . .While the Church assists the State in the promotion of a just society, its primary concern is to assist men and women in achieving salvation. For this reason, it is incumbent upon bishops to correct Catholics who are in error regarding these matters. Furthermore, public officials who are Catholic and who persist in public support for abortion and other intrinsic evils should not partake in or be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. As I have said before, I will be vigilant on this subject.

It is the Church’s role now to be a prophet in our own country, reminding all citizens of what our founders meant when they said that “. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Church’s teaching that all life from conception to natural death should be protected by law is founded on religious belief to be sure, but it is also a profoundly American principle founded on reason. Whenever a society asks its citizens to violate its own foundational principles – as well as their moral consciences – citizens have a right, indeed an obligation, to refuse . . . .

ENTIRE LETTER FOUND AT:
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/Bishop%27s%20Pastoral%20Letters/RespectLifeSundaySeptember30th2008.asp

EXCERPT FROM: Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.
Bishop of Scranton

My predecessor, Bishop Timlin, writing his pastoral letter on Respect Life Sunday 2000, stated the case eloquently:

. . . . Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate . . . .

ENTIRE LETTER FOUND AT:
http://www.dioceseofscranton.org/Bishop%27s%20Pastoral%20Letters/RespectLifeSundaySeptember30th2008.asp

Catholic Vote - Fidelis annouces the launch of its latest project. Watch the inspiring video which invokes America's Catholic heritage and moral obligations.

Visit http://www.catholicvote.com/default.aspx

"After being told for five years or so that the 'rush to war' in Iraq was wrong, we have Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Harry Reid who want us to rush to (a $700 Billion) bailout in a week without knowing the specifics of what's involved here? They tell us it'll be Armageddon without it -- and then they take two days off!"

Source: Rush Limbaugh

YouTube: Song for Dear Leader Obama isn't a "grass roots" production of little children. It's Hollywood Democrats exploiting kids and emulating totalitarian regimes!

Sing for Change Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0xr06qA

SOURCE: RUSH LIMBAUGH

WorldNetDaily.com Inc., PAT BOONE, September 27, 2008

I really didn't believe it could happen in my lifetime. I prayed it wouldn't happen in my kids' lifetime. But my grandkids are showing me that it's happening now. Not just in their day, but in mine.

The Bible depicts a time, during the breakdown of society in the last period of history as we know it, in which forbidden things would become accepted, even praised and promoted. It's a specific picture of a decaying, irreligious world in which long-accepted rules of society and behavior are largely forsaken, a world in which all time-honored boundaries disappear, and societal anarchy takes over.

The prophecy is so detailed and specific that it reads like tomorrow's newspaper – which it actually is. It's the first chapter of the book of Romans, and it's actually written in the past tense, as if God has seen the future and through the writer is describing it as if it has already happened. In case you haven't read it lately, here is a portion of it:

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man – and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Now I know it's not "politically correct" to cite or repeat this scripture. But you tell me: What can this passage, so prominently positioned right in the middle of the New Testament that all Christians believe is the very word of God, possibly be referring to? What, if not the very environment you and I and our kids find ourselves in the middle of? What, if not America today?

The voters in California spoke, just two years ago, in a statewide election. Over 60 percent of the electorate explicitly decreed that marriage should continue to be restricted to one man and one woman, as it has since the beginning of time......CONTINUE....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76307

....."At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, 'The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.'".....

By Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service, Sep-29-2008

ROME (CNS) -- The Democratic Party in the United States "risks transforming itself definitively into a 'party of death,'" said U.S. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, prefect of the Vatican's highest court.

An interview with the former archbishop of St. Louis was published in the Sept. 27 edition of Avvenire, a daily Catholic newspaper sponsored by the Italian bishops' conference.

The newspaper asked the archbishop, the new head of the Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature, for his reaction to reports that his Vatican job was designed to get him away from St. Louis.

"I have too much respect for the pope to believe that in order to move someone away from a diocese he would nominate him to a very sensitive dicastery like this one," said the archbishop, whose office is in charge of ensuring that lower church courts correctly administer justice in accordance with canon law.

Archbishop Burke was asked if he knew that the August Democratic National Convention in Denver featured a guest appearance by Sheryl Crow, a musician whose performance at a 2007 benefit for a Catholic children's hospital the archbishop had opposed because of her support for abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

"That does not surprise me much," the archbishop said. "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death' because of its choices on bioethical questions as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book, 'The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life.'"

Archbishop Burke said the Democratic Party once was "the party that helped our immigrant parents and grandparents better integrate and prosper in American society. But it is not the same anymore."

Pro-life Democrats are "rare, unfortunately," he said.

Archbishop Burke also was asked about being one of a few U.S. bishops to publicly ban Catholic politicians who hold positions contrary to church teaching from receiving Communion.

"Mine was not an isolated position," the archbishop said. "It was shared by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, by Bishop Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte (N.C.) and by others."

"But it is true that the bishops' conference has not taken this position, leaving each bishop free to act as he believes best. For my part, I always have maintained that there must be a united position in order to demonstrate the unity of the church in facing this serious question," he said.

"Recently, I have noticed that other bishops are coming to this position," he said, especially after Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have represented church teaching on abortion in a false and tendentious manner."

Archbishop Burke said he is convinced that a 2004 letter from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the U.S. bishops and canon law say "it is not licit to give holy Communion to one who is publicly and obstinately a sinner. And it is logical that one who publicly and obstinately acts in favor of procured abortion enters into this category."

The newspaper asked Archbishop Burke if he ever wondered why the issue of Communion for Catholic politicians was almost unheard of in Europe, where abortion is legal in most countries.

"I don't know if Catholic politicians in Europe are more coherent, although I would have some doubts," he said.

However, he said, "I am convinced that the church must always be very clear on this point."

"ACORN, Obama, and the Mortgage Mess", By Mona Charen, PATRIOT POST, 30 September 2008

....“ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms." . . . . (In the Bailout Bill) Democrats continue to try to fund their friends at ACORN? . . If Obama wins, it means hiring an arsonist to fight a fire.....

By Thomas Sowell, Townhall.com Columnist, September 30, 2008

Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis.

Among the Congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury."

Moreover, he said that the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing."

Earlier this year, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said that they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.

In other words, Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.

The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who have spent their whole careers assessing risks should have been so obviously absurd that no one would take it seriously.

But the magic words "affordable housing" and the ugly word "redlining" led to politicians directing where loans and investments should go, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and various other coercions and threats.

The roots of this problem go back many years, but since the crisis to which all this led happened on George W. Bush's watch, that is enough for those who think in terms of talking points, without wanting to be confused by the facts.

In reality, President Bush tried unsuccessfully, years ago, to get Congress to create some regulatory agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

N. Gregory Mankiw, his Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned in February 2004 that expecting a government bailout if things go wrong "creates an incentive for a company to take on risk and enjoy the associated increase in return."

Since risky investments usually pay more than safer investments, the incentive is for a government-supported enterprise to take bigger risks, since they get more profit if the risks pay off and the taxpayers get stuck with the losses if not.

The government does not guarantee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but the widespread assumption has been that the government would step in with a bailout to prevent chaos in financial markets.

Alan Greenspan, then head of the Federal Reserve System, made the same point in testifying before Congress in February 2004. He said: "The Federal Reserve is concerned" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were using this implicit reliance on a government bailout in a crisis to take more risks, in order to "multiply the profitability of subsidized debt."

Chairman Greenspan added his voice to those urging Congress to create a "regulator with authority on a par with that of banking regulators" to reduce the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a riskiness ultimately borne by the taxpayers.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer by a collapse of credit markets, such as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the notion that this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.

Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make much more sense than letting politicians play politics with them again, with the risk and expense being again loaded onto the taxpayers.

About The Author Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

....The majority party is responsible for assembling a majority vote, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi failed in that fundamental task.....

OPINION, WALL STREET JOURNAL

America has survived a feckless political class in the past, and it will again after this week. But Monday's crash and burn of the Paulson plan on Capitol Hill reveals a Washington elite that has earned every bit of the disdain that Americans have for it. This crowd can't even make sausage.

The 228-205 defeat reflects badly on all concerned, starting with the Democrats who run the House. The majority party is responsible for assembling a majority vote, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi failed in that fundamental task.

Her highly partisan speech on the floor -- blaming "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" for the financial distress -- is no excuse for Republicans to vote no. But it is indicative of the way she has governed for the past two years -- like Tom DeLay without the charm. The cynics are saying Ms. Pelosi deliberately tanked the bill by giving 95 Democrats a pass, knowing failure would hurt John McCain, and given her track record we can see why people would believe it.

House Republicans share the blame, and not only because they opposed the bill by about two-to-one, 133-65. Their immediate response was to say that many of their Members turned against the bill at the last minute because Ms. Pelosi gave her nasty speech. So they are saying that Republicans chose to oppose something they think is in the national interest merely because of a partisan slight. Thank heaven these guys weren't at Valley Forge.

The vote is also a rebuke for Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who could barely explain how his securities auctions would work even as he showed disdain for House Republicans. President Bush did his best to provide cover for the Members, but he is a spent political force. One GOP Member who supported the bill told us that before Mr. Paulson spoke to House Republicans last week, the whip count in favor was about 70; afterwards, it was closer to 20. You can't ask Congress for $700 billion without more modesty and a better explanation for how it would be used.

Given this historic abdication, we're surprised financial markets didn't melt down more than they did yesterday. Equities nonetheless took the worst bath in percentage terms since the aftermath of 9/11, with the Nasdaq falling more than 9%. But that was a sideshow compared to the credit markets, which staged another flight from all risk. The three-month Treasury yield had sunk to 0.132% the last we checked, which means investors will accept essentially no return as long as they can avoid further financial losses.

Safe in their think-tanks, some of our friends have claimed that talk of a financial crash is merely a political invention. Perhaps we'll now test their theory. A financial panic isn't an academic seminar, and a flight from all risk isn't something any free-marketeer should want. A recession now seems certain, as falling commodity prices are telling us, but the point is to prevent systemic financial collapse. Maybe the Members who voted "no" figure at least they'd still have jobs.

What next? One option is that Democrats will tell Mr. Paulson that they can pass his plan with more liberal votes, but that their price has gone up. This would mean more of the tax, spend and regulate provisions that House GOP leaders stripped out before their rank-and-file headed for the exits. These would only raise the price for taxpayers of the Treasury rescue and, if the equity provisions were too onerous, make the Paulson plan far less workable.

If Mr. Paulson wants to be a statesman, he could offer a Plan B that avoids giving Treasury such a big blank check. Instead, he could propose more public capital for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which would do more of the creative financial plumbing it has done over the last week. (See here.) This will have to happen next year anyway, and the FDIC has long experience protecting taxpayers for public capital injections through preferred stock and warrants.

At the same time, the Secretary could salvage his own proposal by promising that while Treasury would start the purchase of toxic securities from banks, he would quickly (within weeks) turn the process over to a new and separate resolution agency. Congress could make this part of the legislation. This would remove Mr. Paulson as the political lightning rod he has become, and also give the rescue process the political insulation it needs. Such an agency could also work closely with the FDIC to protect taxpayers.

Members may not believe Hank Paulson, but they ought to pay attention to markets. The financial system has a huge capital hole due to losses on mortgage securities and other assets, and private capital won't begin to fill it without the life preserver of public capital.

Before it leaves town to campaign, Congress needs to act to defend and restabilize the financial system. After the last two weeks, and especially after yesterday, the Members also need to act to redeem their own reputations, to the extent they are still worth redeeming.

By Erick Erickson, HUMAN EVENTS, 09/30/2008

EXCERPTS: . . . Maybe had Obama been more engaged, the 95 Democrats in the House who voted against the plan would have passed it.

I guess that is heavy starch we can believe in . . .

Fr. Jonathan Morris, FOX Forum, September 29th, 2008

That’s the odd question some conservatives are asking after the first-term Alaskan governor has demonstrated in recent television interviews what I presumed everyone already knew—she’s not a Washington insider, doesn’t have all the policy answers, talks kinda funny, and at this point, isn’t fully prepared to be President of the United States of America.

This questioning of McCain’s pick by seasoned pundits like Kathleen Parker, who two weeks ago was praising McCain’s choice as inspired and now has called for Gov. Palin to step down from the ticket, is odd, because they should know better. They should know the number two spot has never been about who would be the second, third, or tenth best occupant of the Oval Office.

Just ask Senator Obama.

Or just listen to Senator Biden himself.

When we vote for a president we make a bet. We bet he will be sticking around for at least four years. We bet on his health and stamina. We bet he won’t be killed. We bet he won’t choke on his broccoli. And we bet the running mate will compliment his or her abilities.

Campaigns always float to the public the big white lie that their first consideration in picking a vice-president candidate is “one-heart-beat-away” readiness. That sounds very presidential. It comforts. But it isn’t true. Candidates pick their running mates by balancing two factors 1) how many votes the name will draw to the voting booths 2) how well the two will work together as a team if elected

If Gov. Sarah Palin was an inspired pick—a hypothesis yet to be proven—it will be because of who she is as a woman and mother, her natural and proven leadership, and the traditional values she holds dearly and sincerely.

It will have nothing to do with what she already knows about Washington politics.

If, in Thursday night’s debate, Gov. Palin communicates all three of these unique qualities in words, body language, and in a humble, strong, and kind tone (instead of trying to act like a policy wonk, foreign affairs expert, or even like a president) she may seal the deal for McCain.

And if that happens, she will serve the country in the same unique way.

This scenario is possible because I believe America is starving for some sincerity. We know instinctively we are in trouble today on Wall Street — and on every street — because we have lost our way. Our troubles are not technical; they are human, they are moral.

And who would doubt the perfect form of sincerity is an honest mother who listens to us, a courageous woman who speaks the truth to us, a strong lady who works for us?

Imagine some of that feminine genius in the White House! It may be the only thing that would assure the average voter that Senator McCain will keep his many campaign promises.

Certainly nobody will believe Gov. Palin if she tells us she suddenly knows the technical solution to our economic woes, or if she reminds us again of her experience as Russia’s neighbor, or if she rolls her “r’s” when she talks about Mexico.

But if on Thursday Sarah Palin is every bit Governor Palin—the mom, the wife, the good neighbor, the Christian believer, the intuitive politician who knows how to choose adviser and when to take their advice, the patriot, the state executive with the highest approval rate in the country—and no more, she might go down in history as inspired, if indeed that’s what she is.
What do you think?

God bless,
Father Jonathan

Father Jonathan Morris is author of the new book, “The Promise: God’s Purpose and Plan for when Life Hurts.” For more information click here. http://www.fatherjonathan.com/

..."The failure of one institution could lead to a chain reaction. It would be almost like the Great Depression happening all over again."...

By Martha Brannigan, The Miami Herald, McClatchy Newspapers, www.mctdirect.com , 9/25/2008

MIAMI - Without a government rescue of U.S. financial markets, experts say some worst-case scenarios could ensue:

_Your employer won't be able to make payroll because the company's bank account has been frozen in a bank failure.

_Your bank may close.

"Continuing failures of financial institutions and frozen credit 'threaten American families' financial well-being, the viability of businesses both small and large, and the very health of our economy," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson testified Tuesday before the Senate.

And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke added bluntly that without a rescue plan, the country faces a certain recession and rising unemployment.

For months, the credit markets that provide the lifeblood of the U.S. economic system have been bogged down, initially over fears and uncertainty about soured mortgage loans.

Home mortgages are sliced into a variety of complex packages that have made it difficult for investors to value then now that the real estate market has turned down. Those doubts have dried up the market for trading these securities.

In turn, bankers, stung by bad loans, have tightened lending standards so that it's now hard for the average consumer to get a mortgage, a car loan, or a line of credit to carry out normal financial activities. Similarly, businesses that need to borrow cash to expand operations, buy new equipment or carry on normal operations face tougher hurdles.

With mounting bank failures, banks have gotten increasingly fearful of even lending money to one another overnight - an essential element to providing the financial system with the liquidity needed to do business.

"Based on what Bernanke and Paulson say, there would be more bank failures and an exacerbation of the recent reluctance of banks to lend to one another and to their customers," said Mark J. Flannery, a finance professor at the University of Florida.

The hope of the Bush administration - and at this point it is only a hope - is that the government stepping in as the buyer of last resort for the toxic mortgage securities will stabilize the market.

Once the banks sell off the bad mortgage securities and find ways to rebuild their capital base, they could go forward on steady footing and resume more normal lending.

"No one likes to see government money going to bail out other people, but we have no choice," said Ken Thomas, a Miami banking consultant. "With Bear Stearns and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, we were doing this piecemeal, and we realized the piecemeal approach was not working."

As lawmakers hash out the details of the plan, most experts say something has to be done and quickly.

"The financial markets and banking system are based on confidence," said Krishnan Dandapani, a Florida International University finance professor.

"The failure of one institution could lead to a chain reaction. It would be almost like the Great Depression happening all over again."

....“ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms." . . . . (In the Bailout Bill) Democrats continue to try to fund their friends at ACORN? . . If Obama wins, it means hiring an arsonist to fight a fire.....

By Mona Charen, PATRIOT POST, 30 September 2008

The financial markets were teetering on the edge of an abyss last week. The secretary of the Treasury was literally on his knees begging the speaker of the House not to sabotage the bailout bill. The crash of falling banks made the earth tremble. The Republican presidential candidate suspended his campaign to deal with the crisis. And amid all this, the Democrats in Congress managed to find time to slip language into the bailout legislation that would provide a dandy little slush fund for ACORN.

ACORN stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a busy hive of left-wing agitation and “direct action” that claims chapters in 50 cities and 100,000 dues-paying members.

ACORN is where Sixties leftovers who couldn't get tenure at universities wound up. That the bill-writing Democrats remembered their pet clients during such an emergency speaks volumes. This attempted gift to ACORN (stripped out of the bill after outraged howls from Republicans) demonstrates how little Democrats understand about what caused the mess we're in.

ACORN does many things under the umbrella of “community organizing." They agitate for higher minimum wages, attempt to thwart school reform, try to unionize welfare workers (that is, those welfare recipients who are obliged to work in exchange for benefits) and organize voter registration efforts (always for Democrats, of course). Because they are on the side of righteousness and justice, they aren't especially fastidious about their methods. In 2006, for example, ACORN registered 1,800 new voters in Washington. The only trouble was, with the exception of six, all of the names submitted were fake. The secretary of state called it the “worst case of election fraud in our state's history."

As Fox News reported:

“The ACORN workers told state investigators that they went to the Seattle public library, sat at a table and filled out the voter registration forms. They made up names, addresses, and Social Security numbers and in some cases plucked names from the phone book. One worker said it was a lot of hard work making up all those names and another said he would sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out the forms."

ACORN explained that this was an “isolated” incident, yet similar stories have been reported in Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, and Colorado -- all swing states, by the way. ACORN members have been prosecuted for voter fraud in a number of states. (See www.rottenacorn.com .) Their philosophy seems to be that everyone deserves the right to vote, whether legal or illegal, living or dead.

ACORN recognized very early the opportunity presented by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977. As Stanley Kurtz has reported, ACORN proudly touted “affirmative action” lending and pressured banks to make subprime loans. Madeline Talbott, a Chicago ACORN leader, boasted of “dragging banks kicking and screaming” into dubious loans. And, as Sol Stern reported in City Journal, ACORN also found a remunerative niche as an “advisor” to banks seeking regulatory approval. “Thus we have J.P. Morgan & Co., the legatee of the man who once symbolized for many all that was supposedly evil about American capitalism, suddenly donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN."

Is this a great country or what? As conservative community activist Robert Woodson put it, “The same corporations that pay ransom to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pay ransom to ACORN."

ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott hired him to train her staff -- the very people who would later descend on Chicago's banks as CRA shakedown artists.

The Democratic nominee (Barack Obama) later funneled money to the group through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic -- he was an ACORN fellow traveler.

Now you could make the case that before 2008, well-intentioned people were simply unaware of what their agitation on behalf of non-credit-worthy borrowers could lead to.

But now? With the whole financial world and possibly the world economy trembling and cracking like a cement building in an earthquake, Democrats continue to try to fund their friends at ACORN?

And, unashamed, they then trot out to the TV cameras to declare “the party is over” for Wall Street (Nancy Pelosi)? The party should be over for the Democrats who brought us to this pass.

If Obama wins, it means hiring an arsonist to fight a fire.

LifeSiteNews.com, September 29, 2008

To download a copy of the Vote Scorecard click:
http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF08I02.pdf

WASHINGTON, D.C. - FRC Action and Focus on the Family Action released the Vote Scorecard for the full 110th Congress. In 2007, there were numerous votes in Congress that were detrimental to the family. The new Scorecard details how Members of Congress voted on pro-life and pro-family issues.

Recorded votes include:

* Prohibition on Funding Human Cloning
* Embryonic Stem Cell Research Act
* Federal Hate Crimes Act
* Employment Non-Discrimination Act
* Restrict Funding to Planned Parenthood
* Prevent DC Same-sex Marriage
* Protect Health Insurance for Unborn Children
* Protect Grassroots Organizations in Lobby Reform Bill
* Exploit Indian Gambling Act

This Scorecard allows voters to see how their Members of Congress voted on key issues related to protecting life and the family.

To download a copy of the Vote Scorecard click:
http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF08I02.pdf

...“The fight against the culture of death is primarily a spiritual battle”...

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, SEPT. 30, 2008

Front Royal, Va - The pro-life group Human Life International (HLI) has launched an international campaign to promote praying the St. Michael prayer for the conversion of abortionists.

“The fight against the culture of death is primarily a spiritual battle,” said HLI president Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer. “Human Life International knows that with the aid of St. Michael, abortionists around the world will convert from their cooperation with evil.”

“Nowhere are the words of St. Paul that ‘our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens’ (Ephesians 6:12), more evident or obvious than in the abortion battle,” he continued.

“As a pro-life organization we are naturally concerned with the babies killed by abortion and their mothers who are ravaged by it. But we are also concerned with the eternal souls of those caught up in this evil, the abortionists, and others who promote it. We want to see them in Heaven, and as a priest that is of ultimate concern to me.”

HLI is asking people to sign a pledge of support for the campaign and to pray the St. Michael prayer daily, especially after each Mass. The organization also asks people to send copies of the pledge to parishes to be inserted in the weekly bulletins.

HLI has produced St. Michael prayer cards in English, Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese. More information is available at www.hli.org/st_michael_prayer.html .

....Rep. John LaBruzzo said he is now gathering statistics in an effort to reduce the number of people “that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare."....

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, SEPT. 30, 2008

New Orleans - Archbishop of New Orleans Alfred C. Hughes has criticized a Louisiana lawmaker’s proposal to pay poor women to sterilize themselves, calling it “seriously wrong,” “blatantly anti-life,” and a “form of eugenics.”

Louisiana’s Rep. John LaBruzzo, a Republican from Metairie, last week said he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

His proposal would also cover other forms of birth control, such as vasectomies for men, and could also encourage tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, the Times-Picayune reports.

Speaking of demographic trends, LaBruzzo said: “We're on a train headed to the future and there's a bridge out… And nobody wants to talk about it.”

LaBruzzo said he is concerned that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than the more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more taxes to the government.

He said he is now gathering statistics in an effort to reduce the number of people “that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare."

LaBruzzo, who represents the same district that elected David Duke to the state legislature in 1989, said his proposal is not targeting race because more white people are on welfare than black people.

Writing in a Thursday statement, Archbishop Hughes rebuked the proposal, saying:

“The Catholic Church has consistently taught that direct sterilization is seriously wrong. The recent proposal of Representative LaBruzzo not only would make sterilization our public policy and require tax payers to pay for it, but would also constitute a form of eugenics that the Church and this country have always condemned as an egregious affront to those targeted and blatantly anti-life.”

“Our lawmakers would do better to focus on policies that promote education and achievement to counteract poverty and the bigotry of low expectations,” Archbishop Hughes said.

....Attributing the crisis to “greed, speculation, exploitation of vulnerable people and dishonest practices,” Bishop Murphy said those responsible for the crisis should be held accountable . . . Calling for a commitment to the common good, Bishop Murphy said protection of the vulnerable workers, business owners, homeowners, renters, and stockholders should be included in efforts to protect financial institutions.....

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY, SEPT. 30, 2008

Washington DC - William Murphy, Bishop of Rockville Centre and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, has written to U.S. political leaders and the Secretary of the Treasury asking that the Bush administration and Congress make a moral response to the financial crisis.

“The economic crisis facing our nation is both terribly disturbing and enormously complicated,” Bishop Murphy wrote in his September 26 letter. “I write to offer the prayers of the U.S. Catholic Bishops and express the concerns of our Conference as you face difficult choices on how to limit the damage and move forward with prudence and justice.”

While saying that the bishops do not bring “technical expertise,” the bishop explained, “we believe our faith and moral principles can help guide the search for just and effective responses to the economic turmoil threatening our people.”

Bishop Murphy urged that the “enormous human impact” of the crisis be at the center of the debate over the response plan. People are losing their jobs, their benefits, and even their homes while some people risk losing their life savings.

“The scandalous search for excessive economic rewards even to the point of dangerous speculation that exacerbates the pain and losses of the more vulnerable are egregious examples of an economic ethic that places economic gain above all other values,” he wrote.

Attributing the crisis to “greed, speculation, exploitation of vulnerable people and dishonest practices,” Bishop Murphy said those responsible for the crisis should be held accountable.

Citing John Paul II’s words about the human needs not met by the free market, the bishop wrote that the crisis showed the market has limitations as well as advantages. He then endorsed “effective public regulation and protection” when necessary.

The principle of solidarity “reminds us that we are in this together and warns us that concern for narrow interests alone can make things worse.” Calling for a commitment to the common good, Bishop Murphy said protection of the vulnerable workers, business owners, homeowners, renters, and stockholders should be included in efforts to protect financial institutions.

The bishop added that the principle of subsidiarity means that private actors and institutions should accept their own obligations. If they do not, larger entities such as the government will have to step in.

“This is a challenging time for our nation,” Bishop Murphy wrote. “Everyone who carries responsibility should exercise it according to their respective roles and with a great sensitivity to reforming practices and setting forth new guidelines that will serve all people, all institutions of the economy and the common good of the people as a nation.”

Bishop Murphy closed his letter by repeating the Catholic tradition’s call for a “society of work, enterprise and participation” which is not directed against the market but demands its appropriate control to ensure that the “basic needs of the whole society are satisfied.”

Saint Jerome. Memorial

Luke 9: 51-56

When the days for Jesus to be taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem, and he sent messengers ahead of him. On the way they entered a Samaritan village to prepare for his reception there, but they would not welcome him because the destination of his journey was Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to consume them?" Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they journeyed to another village.

Introductory Prayer: Jesus, my eyes have seen stunning events, events that have disappointed and discouraged me. May my faith always remind me not to complain; rather, I should be a person of hope and love. I hope in you, Jesus, because you are faithful to all that you have promised me. Help me to love you unconditionally in a spirit of gratitude and humility.

Petition: Lord Jesus, make me meek and humble of heart.

1. An Unpopular Strategy
Jesus was like the general of an army. His wasn’t a visible enemy, though; his enemy was the hidden forces of evil itself. Jesus waged war on the devil until the bitter end. “This was the purpose of the appearing of the Son of God, to undo the work of the devil” (1 John 3:8). Jesus marched on toward Jerusalem, and this Gospel described his march with a military term: “resolutely”. Nevertheless, even though he was engaged in fierce combat, Jesus didn’t show it in a way the world understood. Our Lord approached his battle in Jerusalem like a sheep being led to the slaughter. His strategy was humility. Humility was the atomic bomb that he would drop on Satan’s designs and plans.

2. A Lesson in Humility
St. John the Evangelist is an active participant in this passage. He himself knew that Jesus’ purpose was to wage war (cf. 1 John 3:8), and he and his brother dreamed of being well-decorated in Jesus’ battalion. They sought places at his right and left hand in the Kingdom (cf. Mark 10:35-37), and now they seek to use their rank as apostles to bring down revenge on their opponents. Jesus rebuked them, redefining for them the idea of kingship in his reign. They learned quickly that the weapons of attack were kindness, gentleness, charity and humility.

3. Mission Oriented
In military standards, a commander-in-chief might have considered the incident in Samaria a defeat. Christ was uprooted from their presence, so humanly speaking, he lost. This is not the case. Had Jesus complained or retaliated against the fanaticism of the Samaritans, that would have been a defeat. Instead, the Gospel tells us: “They journeyed to another village.” Simple as that! Christ won victory because he didn’t waste time on fickle, whimsical and capricious expectations; rather as a true soldier, he forgave, forgot and continued to the next town.

Conversation with Christ: Lord Jesus, allow me to understand the bumps and bruises of your “boot camp”. It is hard to understand why life is so taxing for my weak nature, but I know that we are at war with the forces of evil. Seeing you die for this war and winning it gives me greater courage to commit my bit to the war effort. Help me to prefer the virtue of humility over my pride.

Resolution: Today, I will be to the one who does an everyday chore in my house. I will make the coffee for all or wash the dishes to demonstrate to the Lord that I can be humble.

AMERICAN CATHOLIC, September 30, 2008

Most of the saints are remembered for some outstanding virtue or devotion which they practiced, but Jerome is remembered too frequently for his bad temper! It is true that he had a very bad temper and could use a vitriolic pen, but his love for God and his Son Jesus Christ was extraordinarily intense; anyone who taught error was an enemy of God and truth, and St. Jerome went after him or her with his mighty and sometimes sarcastic pen.

He was above all a Scripture scholar, translating most of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. He also wrote commentaries which are a great source of scriptural inspiration for us today. He was an avid student, a thorough scholar, a prodigious letter-writer and a consultant to monk, bishop and pope. St. Augustine said of him, "What Jerome is ignorant of, no mortal has ever known."

St. Jerome is particularly important for having made a translation of the Bible which came to be called the Vulgate. It is not the most critical edition of the Bible, but its acceptance by the Church was fortunate. As a modern scholar says, "No man before Jerome or among his contemporaries and very few men for many centuries afterwards were so well qualified to do the work." The Council of Trent called for a new and corrected edition of the Vulgate, and declared it the authentic text to be used in the Church.

In order to be able to do such work, Jerome prepared himself well. He was a master of Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Chaldaic. He began his studies at his birthplace, Stridon in Dalmatia (in the former Yugoslavia). After his preliminary education he went to Rome, the center of learning at that time, and thence to Trier, Germany, where the scholar was very much in evidence. He spent several years in each place, trying always to find the very best teachers.

After these preparatory studies he traveled extensively in Palestine, marking each spot of Christ's life with an outpouring of devotion. Mystic that he was, he spent five years in the desert of Chalcis so that he might give himself up to prayer, penance and study. Finally he settled in Bethlehem, where he lived in the cave believed to have been the birthplace of Christ. On September 30 in the year 420, Jerome died in Bethlehem. The remains of his body now lie buried in the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome.

Comment: Jerome was a strong, outspoken man. He had the virtues and the unpleasant fruits of being a fearless critic and all the usual moral problems of a man. He was, as someone has said, no admirer of moderation whether in virtue or against evil. He was swift to anger, but also swift to feel remorse, even more severe on his own shortcomings than on those of others. A pope is said to have remarked, on seeing a picture of Jerome striking his breast with a stone, "You do well to carry that stone, for without it the Church would never have canonized you" (Butler's Lives of the Saints).

Quote: "In the remotest part of a wild and stony desert, burnt up with the heat of the scorching sun so that it frightens even the monks that inhabit it, I seemed to myself to be in the midst of the delights and crowds of Rome. In this exile and prison to which for the fear of hell I had voluntarily condemned myself, I many times imagined myself witnessing the dancing of the Roman maidens as if I had been in the midst of them: In my cold body and in my parched-up flesh, which seemed dead before its death, passion was able to live. Alone with this enemy, I threw myself in spirit at the feet of Jesus, watering them with my tears, and I tamed my flesh by fasting whole weeks. I am not ashamed to disclose my temptations, but I grieve that I am not now what I then was" ("Letter to St. Eustochium").

Inaugural Address - President Reagan, West Front of the U.S. Capitol, January 20, 1981

"Government is Not the Answer to Our Problems; Government is the Problem."

This speech was delivered to the nation when President Reagan was inaugurated to his first term of office.

By Thomas Sowell, Brief, Patriot Post, Vol. 08 No. 40, 29 September 2008

“Much of that mess [in the financial markets] is due to the very people we are now turning to for solutions—members of Congress. Past Congresses created the hybrid financial institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, private institutions with government backing and political influence. About half of the mortgages in this country are backed by these two institutions. Such institutions—exempt from laws that apply to other financial institutions and backed by the implicit promise of government support with the taxpayers’ money—are an open invitation to risky behavior. When these risks blew up in their faces, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the government, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.

Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generous in their contributions to politicians’ political campaigns, so it is perhaps not surprising that politicians have been generous to them. This is certainly part of ‘the mess in Washington’ that Barack Obama talks about. But don’t expect him to clean it up. Franklin Raines, who made mega-millions for himself while mismanaging Fannie Mae into a financial disaster, is one of Obama’s advisers.”

By Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, CATHOLIC EXCHANGE, September 29th, 2008

EXCERPT: . . . While certain kinds of violence like abortion and embryo destruction can never be directly supported under any circumstances, other forms of violence like war and the death penalty may be morally tolerated in very limited circumstances. The difference lies in the fact that human life in the womb is, by definition, completely innocent, while the criminal in the electric chair (or the unjust wartime aggressor threatening a sovereign state) is no longer innocent, but is guilty of serious wrongdoing beyond any reasonable doubt . . .

....Certain kinds of evils, known as “intrinsic” evils, can never be permitted in a society, and candidates who promote such evils need to be shown the door by our votes, regardless of their positions on other, lesser issues.....

By Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, CATHOLIC EXCHANGE, September 29th, 2008

In the United States, only about half of those who were eligible to vote actually cast ballots during the last national election. I admit I have not always voted in the past. When I am tempted not to vote, however, I think back to a story I once heard about a certain Aunt Katherine who died a few years ago. She was blind during the last months of her life, but she had her daughter read the ballot to her and fill it out on her behalf. She was careful to sign the ballot and make sure it was mailed. It was one of the last things she did before she went to the Lord. She believed that voting was important, and it was one way she manifested her concern for others and for the society she was a part of.

We face the daunting task of evaluating many hot-button issues and sorting through various candidates’ positions whenever we vote. We may have to consider energy policy, access to health care, education, social security, the problem of homelessness, taxes, farm subsidies and inner city violence, to mention just a few. Some issues, however, merit greater attention than others.

The life issues - extending from abortion to embryonic stem-cell research to euthanasia - are, objectively speaking, the most critical issues to weigh in on as we cast our vote, because they address the basic good of life itself. Even if we strongly approve of a candidate’s position on social security and taxation, would that ever allow us to vote for him if we knew that he condoned and promoted human slavery?

Even if we strongly agreed with a candidate’s position on health care and education, would that allow us to vote for him if we knew he supported the genocide of Jewish people?

Certain kinds of evils, known as “intrinsic” evils, can never be permitted in a society, and candidates who promote such evils need to be shown the door by our votes, regardless of their positions on other, lesser issues. In the words of Father Brian Bransfield, a truthful conscience will wince whenever it “hears a candidate claim that he can fix health care, but still agree that a child in the womb can be killed. Conscience knows that if a candidate favors human embryonic stem-cell research, which always includes the killing of a human person, then our neighborhoods can never be free of violence - because we just voted for violence.”

When casting our vote, then, we ought to begin from a key and unmovable position - that every human being has a right to life, and that fundamental right makes all other rights possible. Absolute protection for the gift of life is the foundation of all the other goods we hope to promote and enjoy within our society.

While certain kinds of violence like abortion and embryo destruction can never be directly supported under any circumstances, other forms of violence like war and the death penalty may be morally tolerated in very limited circumstances. The difference lies in the fact that human life in the womb is, by definition, completely innocent, while the criminal in the electric chair (or the unjust wartime aggressor threatening a sovereign state) is no longer innocent, but is guilty of serious wrongdoing beyond any reasonable doubt.

Inasmuch as an accused criminal or a wartime aggressor is guilty of radical evil, war and the death penalty may at times, and in limited circumstances, represent a legitimate societal response. War and capital punishment, then, cannot be deemed intrinsically immoral.

Any direct attack on innocent human life - whether through abortion, embryonic stem-cell research or euthanasia - will always remain intrinsically immoral.

Voting for a candidate who supports war or capital punishment in very limited circumstances is not the moral equivalent of voting for a candidate who supports the killing of innocent human life in the womb or in the research laboratory.

Would it ever be morally justifiable to vote for a candidate who supports abortion or other intrinsic evils?

Possibly. To vote this way, however, would require a proportionate reason for doing so. We can begin to understand what is meant by a “proportionate reason” if we consider a hypothetical case of two candidates running for president of the United States, one of whom favors a law that would authorize the killing of all Muslims living within the country (because the candidate claims that a small percentage of them might pose a terrorist threat someday). The second candidate, meanwhile, opposes any such genocide, but supports and encourages the killing of the unborn through abortion.

It might be permissible to vote for this pro-abortion candidate, not to support his pro-abortion agenda, but as a means to prevent the killing of Muslims.

Roughly 1 million children are killed annually by abortion in the United States, while there are about 5 million citizens who are Muslims. Insofar as a vote for the pro-abortion candidate would help prevent the unjust killing of nearly five times as many Muslims as unborn humans, one could safely say that there was a “proportionate reason” to vote in this way. One might prefer to refrain from voting altogether in these circumstances, considering that both candidates are supporting intrinsic evils in their platforms. We must exercise caution, however: abstaining from the voting booth can unintentionally lead to support for the more evil platform. We should probably refrain from voting only when the platforms of all candidates support intrinsic evils to a similar degree.

In sum, voting is an indispensable duty within our democracy. The attention we focus on protecting vulnerable and innocent human life when we cast our votes will determine, in large part, whether we promote a just or an unjust society for our children and grandchildren.

Fr. Pacholczyk earned his doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard. He is a priest of the diocese of Fall River, MA, and serves as the Director of Education at The National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.

This article courtesy of the Arlington Catholic Herald.

By Fr. James Farfaglia, Pastor, St. Helena of the Cross Parish, Corpus Christi, Tx, September 29, 2008

On October 13, 1884 Pope Leo XIII had just completed a celebration of Mass in one of the Vatican's private chapels. Standing at the foot of the altar, he suddenly turned ashen and collapsed to the floor, apparently the victim of a stroke or heart attack. However, neither malady was the cause of his collapse. For he had just been given a vision of the future of the Church he loved so much. After a few minutes spent in what seemed like a coma, he revived and remarked to those around him, "Oh, what a horrible picture I was permitted to see!"

What Leo XIII apparently saw, as described later by those who talked to him at the time of his vision, was a period of about one hundred years when the power of Satan would reach its zenith. That period was to be the twentieth century. Leo was so shaken by the spectre of the destruction of moral and spiritual values both inside and outside the Church, that he composed a prayer which was to be said at the end of each Mass celebrated anywhere in the Catholic Church.

This prayer to Michael the Archangel was said continuously until the Mass was restructured in the Second Vatican council.

The prayer is as follows:

"Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do you, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and the other evil spirits who prowl about the world for the ruin of souls. Amen."

By Jed Babbin, HUMAN EVENTS, 09/29/2008

EXCERPTS: . . . You know it’s bad when the scruffy-scragglies seem to make more sense than our political leaders. The Sunday Washington Post showed one demonstrator at a Wall Street Saturday protest against the financial bailout. The young gent was holding a sign that said in part, “No Banker Left Behind.”

There you have it: the latest federal entitlement program: first Congress gave us SCHIP, the first middle-class entitlement, and now we’ll have NBLB.

Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a deal on the president’s proposal to bail out Wall Street that House Republicans had signed on to. It’s not as bad as it could be, but nevertheless intervenes in -- and thereby limits -- free market capitalism to a degree unprecedented in American history. Control of the financial market no longer resides in London and New York: it’s relocated forcibly to Capitol Hill . . . . . .

. . . . .Many of the Democrats’ worst ideas have apparently been eliminated from the agreed package. Among them are:

1. No money goes to left-wing activists such as ACORN. All money paid back to the government goes to debt reduction;

2. No union power grab: Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) and Cong. Barney Frank (D-Mass) wanted to enable unions to force themselves into the board rooms of all companies whose securities are purchased by the government;

3. No “cram down” bankruptcy provision enabling bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of mortgages; and

4. No tax hikes: The Democrats wanted to tax securities transactions to help fund a payback. The proposed compromise instead requires a proposal by the Treasury Department to Congress to recoup any potential losses . . . .

CONTINUE READING, GO TO:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28759

Mr. Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration.

...Obama’s world vision ought to scare the pants off Americans from diapers to Depends.

EXCERPT: . . . . The foreign-policy differences between the two presidential candidates could not be more stark. And the chasm does not center on Iraq. It is about what ‘America first’ really means. Not hegemony. Not a disinterest in cooperation or insensitivity to regional differences. But believing in a set of values rooted in human dignity and respect — and being genuinely prepared to defend those values against our real enemies. Only one candidate has even committed to that task . . . .

...Economic freedom means the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail....

By Rep. Mike Pence, HUMAN EVENTS, 09/28/2008

Dear Colleagues:

MIKE PENCE

Mr. Pence, a Republican, represents the 6th District of Indiana in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was chosen as the HUMAN E