Is Anybody There?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says Yahweh Sabaoth" Zach 4:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dio di Signore, nella Sua volontà è nostra pace!" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin 1759

Friday, July 31, 2009

Laws, Lies, and Videotape

American Life League

Here is the full video that Michael Hitchborn talked about. ALL has a link to this from the YouTube page their video is on so that you can see that they weren't taking things out of context. Just so you know what their real attitude is on their Legal Advocacy webpage they say: "NAPW engages in legal advocacy that challenges efforts to criminalize pregnancy and motherhood, establish fetal rights under the law, and expand the war on drugs to women's wombs." In other words, they don't want the unborn child to be treated as a human being & thus protected from abortion or anything done to stop the mother from harming the baby via drugs or alcohol. Now you know why they left those facts out of the 1 story. They try & make it sound like they want to work for a true "culture of life" but they are really another part of the "culture of death".
There is more that I could say, but all I will add is that in reading what they say about abortion, it sounds like it was taken right from Planned Parenthood's playbook.

For Once Obama was Right

A few weeks ago as press pool reporters entered the State Dining Room to cover President Obama's health care meeting, he compared the seemingly endless line of reporters to that of a "clown car." Surprizingly CBS has this video on YouTube, but embedding has been disabled so you have to follow the link.
& while he went on to say he was just joking, here is the proof he wasn't:

Betsy McCaughey Exposes Obama Healthcare Lies

The Fred Thompson Show:

Mark Levin:


I could go on & on, but you get the picture. ObamaCare is a death sentence for senior citizens & many others (including the unborn) as well. What amazes me is how in denial AARP is that it is supporting a plan that would kill of its own members. ( AARP: Setting the record straight, “Obamacare could kill AARP.” ) The only explanation I can come up with is what a friend of mine pointed out, AARP sells health insurance & wants to be sure it gets its share of the take under ObamaCare. In other words, once again it is selling out the very people it is supposed to be standing up for. I just got another mailing asking me to join. I think you know where I filed it.
I will add that when I saw how the annual membership fee had jumped up to $16 (from $12.50) & then read that in 2006 AARP "derives more income from its businesses than from the $12.50 annual dues paid by each of its 35 million members" (New Drug Program Is a Benefit for AARP) I knew I was right about AARP selling out for a buck. Not that I needed the proof given how much I had already seen this conflict of interest during their push for Medicare Prescription Insurance in 2003.

Note: Betsy McCaughey must be doing something right since she has got Keith Olberman's shorts bunched up in a knot:

I think Mark Levin has got Olby's number when it comes to this attack:


The Saint of "Common Sense"?

This is something that has been on my mind for a while, that his cause should be opened. & it looks like the 1st steps are finally being taken. Chesterton has so much to say about where we are & where we should be. & God willing may we someday call him St. G.K., the "Common Sense Doctor of the Church".
For more on Chesterton go to the American Chesterton Society or The Chesterton Society in England websites.

"Blessed" G.K. Chesterton?

Interview on Possible Beatification of English Author
By Antonio Gaspari
ROME, JULY 14, 2009 ( Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1874-1936) is well known for his clever and humorous writing, and his thought-provoking paradoxes. But he might also become known as a saint, if a proposal to launch his cause of beatification goes forward.
ZENIT spoke with Paolo Gulisano, author of the first Italian-language biography of the great English writer ("Chesterton & Belloc: Apologia e Profezia," Edizioni Ancora), about the origins of this proposal. Here, Gulisano explains why Chesterton might merit recognition as a saint.
ZENIT: Who is promoting this cause of beatification?
Gulisano: The cultural association dedicated to him, the Chesterton Society, founded in England in 1974 on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the great author's birth, with the idea of spreading awareness of the work, thought and figure of this extraordinary personality. For years now, there has been talk of a possible cause of beatification, and a few days ago, during an international conference organized in Oxford on "The Holiness of G.K. Chesterton" -- with the participation of the best exponents in the field of Chesterton studies -- it was decided to go ahead with this proposal.
ZENIT: Why a beatification?
Gulisano: Many people feel there is clear evidence of Chesterton's sanctity: Testimonies about him speak of a person of great goodness and humility, a man without enemies, who proposed the faith without compromises but also without confrontation, a defender of Truth and Charity. His greatness is also in the fact that he knew how to present Christianity to a wide public, made up of Christians and secular people. His books, ranging from "Orthodoxy" to "St. Francis of Assisi," from "Father Brown" to "The Ball and the Cross," are brilliant presentations of the Christian faith, witnessed with clarity and valor before the world.
According to the ancient categories of the Church, we could define Chesterton as a "confessor of the faith." He was not just an apologist, but also a type of prophet who glimpsed far ahead of time the dramatic character of modern issues like eugenics. The English Dominican Aidan Nichols sustains that Chesterton should be seen as nothing less than a possible "father of the Church" of the 20th century.
ZENIT: What are his heroic virtues?
Gulisano: Faith, hope and charity: These were Chesterton's fundamental virtues. Moreover, he was innocent, simple, profoundly humble. Though having personally experienced sorrow, he was a chorister of Christian joy. Chesterton's work is a type of medicine for the soul, or better, it can more precisely be defined as an antidote. The writer himself had actually used the metaphor of antidote to define the effect of sanctity on the world: The saint has the objective of being a sign of contradiction and of restoring mental sanity to a world gone crazy.
ZENIT: What is the cultural, literary and moral contribution that Chesterton has left to British society and to Christianity?
Gulisano: When Pope Pius XI was informed of the death of the great writer, he sent a telegram of condolences through his secretary of state, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli. In the telegram, he mourned the loss of a "devout son of the Holy Church, rich defender of the gifts of the Catholic faith." This was the second time in history that a Pontiff would attribute the title "defender of the faith" to an Englishman. Perhaps the secretary of state did not realize the ironic parallelism, which would have sparked in Gilbert one of his proverbial guffaws -- but the other Englishman was Henry VIII, the man who inflicted on the Church in England its gravest and deepest wound. Chesterton tried to again bring England, and also the world, closer to God, the faith, reason.
ZENIT: What is your opinion on all this?
Gulisano: Reading Chesterton, whether his novels or his essays, always leaves the reader with great serenity and a sense of hope, which certainly does not come from an immature and worldly optimistic vision of life -- which in reality couldn't be farther from the thought of Chesterton, who carefully denounced all the aberrations of modernity -- but rather from a Christian conception, the virile strength of the religious experience.
Chesterton's proposal is to take all of reality seriously, beginning with the interior reality of man, and to confidently make use of the intellect, that is to say, of common sense, in its original sanity, purified of every ideological incrustation.
One rarely reads pages that speak of faith, conversion and doctrine that are so clear and incisive, while being free of every sentimental or moralistic excess. This comes from Chesterton's attentive reading of reality; he knew that the most harmful consequence of de-Christianization has not been the grave ethical straying but rather the straying of reason, synthesized in this critique of his: The modern world has suffered a mental fall much greater than the moral one.
Faced to this reality, Chesterton chose Catholicism, and affirms that there are at least 10,000 reasons to justify this choice, every one of them valid and well-founded, but able to be boiled down to one reason: That Catholicism is true. The responsibility and the task of the Church then consist in this: In the courage to believe, in the first place, and therefore to denounce the paths that lead to nothingness or destruction, to a blind wall or a prejudice. An undoubtedly holy work, and the holiness of Gilbert Chesterton, which I hope the Church will recognize, already shines and sparkles before the world.[Translation by Kathleen Naab]

Obama's Science Czar Gives More Rights to Trees than the Unborn

I've come across a couple more items about John P. Holdren, Obama's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that make me all the more convinced that Obama's choice should be in a padded room, not advising the president.
1st there is this post from Some Have Hats, A Tree Sues in Brooklyn, that talks about Holden's call to let trees sue in court. You got that right, he wants to give legal rights to trees, in fact the whole environment. According to the article, he endorsed an idea been proposed by law professor Christopher D. Stone in his celebrated monograph, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’ Holdren said in the 1977 book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environmentthat he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich: “In that tightly reasoned essay, Stone points out the obvious advantages of giving natural objects standing, just as such inanimate objects as corporations, trusts, and ships are now held to have legal rights and duties.

Stone’s article, Should Trees Have Standing?, was published in the Southern California Law Review in 1972. In it, Stone plainly states: “I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called ‘natural objects’ in the environment—indeed, to the natural environment as a whole.”
In a previous post (It's Official! Eugenics Is Our National Science Policy) I mentioned that this book he co-wrote with the Ehrlichs included an endorsement of euthenasia, as well as compulsory abortion.
But there is more, while saying that trees, oceans, etc should have legal rights he made it clear that newborns didn't deserve any rights, because they weren't human. In 1973 he co-wrote another book with the Ehrlichs, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. He wrote: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.” & until that time it has no rights. But a tree aiutomaticly does according to him. (Obama’s Science Czar Said a Born Baby ‘Will Ultimately Develop Into a Human Being’) The book had been written before Roe v Wade & the passage in question was part of a subsection of the “Population Limitation” chapter that argued for legalized abortion.“
This guy just keeps getting SCARIER & SCARIER. In that same pargraph they say: "To a biologist the question of when life begins for a human child is almost meaningless, since life is continuous and has been since it first began on Earth several billion years ago,” wrote the Ehrlichs and Holdren. “The precursors of the egg and sperm cells that create the next generation have been present in the parents from the time they were embryos themselves. To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building." They also point out that legal scholars hold the view that a “fetus” is not considered a “person” under the U.S. Constitution until “it is born.”
Follow this to its logical conclusion. If an unborn child isn't fully human, then abortion is OK, if a child isn't fully human even after birth until it meets a certain set of criteria, then it doesn't have the automatic right to live either. (Something ethicist Peter Singer has also been saying in recent years.) The question is, who determines what criteria determine that the newborn has finally become a human being? What determines that the individual is deficient & thus not human? & since it isn't human, it doesn't have the right to life & can be killed at any time. Sound familiar? Yup, Hitler's view of the Jews as well as Sanger's Eugenics among many others.
So what is an "essential early socializing experience"? Would being raised a Catholic who follows the teachings of the Church be enough to say you were deficient in those esential experiences? Sanger would say yes? Her current day followers would say the same. & that includes Sec of State Clinton & a whole huge number of other people in the Obama administration. Get that, by his definition any believer in God, anyone who opposes abortion, or even Obama's agenda could someday be defined as deficient. We aren't there yet, but if Holden's beliefs do become policy & are followed to their logical conclusions we will soon be facing 1 of the greatest eras of persecution & martyrdom for the faith that the world has ever seen.
Human beings who can walk, talk & think would have no rights unless they meet a certain set of criteria, yet trees who can't do any of the above will automaticly have those rights humans are denied. What's wrong with this picture? Maybe I should say "How many things are wrong?" since there clearly is nothing right.


Tolerance Is Not a Christian Virtue

Tolerance and Charity
Jul 30, 2009
Brian A. Graebe

Tolerance is a nice word, but is it a Christian virtue? Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver doesn’t think so, and his claim has occasioned no small amount of protest. In a smug editorial, America magazine recently chastened Chaput for coarsening the tenor of intra-ecclesial discourse. While no call for courtesy and civility should go unheeded, an apology for toleration that ignores its niceties only furthers the intellectual and moral torpor plaguing the public square.
Proponents of a kinder, gentler discussion on the great issues of our day often attempt a rhetorical sleight of hand, coupling tolerance with charity. Such a pairing is ambiguous at best. The call to charity—loving one’s fellow man as a child of God—is universal and, one hopes, uncontroversial. But what does it mean to be tolerant of those with whom we disagree on serious matters? If used as a synonym for charity, combined patience and magnanimity, one can make a case, but that case remains weak and the term imprecise. Jesus did not say, “Tolerate one another, as I have tolerated you.” Surely, we are called to do more than put up with each other. I put up with the traffic in midtown Manhattan, but I’d gladly be rid of it. And how exactly is someone intolerant of others—not the views of others, but others themselves? One can be uncharitable, nasty, or curmudgeonly, but that’s not quite the same as being intolerant. In the noble aim of a more elevated tone in public discourse, a plea for tolerance somehow misses the mark.
The concept of tolerance forms and is formed by one’s ideas, beliefs, and convictions. Such a realm can hardly be considered innocuous, consigned to some ivory tower and therefore isolated from any real world implication. How we think determines how we act. Richard Weaver wrote some sixty years ago that ideas have consequences—consequences that powerfully impact the moral health and spiritual well-being of society. To take an example from the economic sphere, it would be difficult to overstate the ways in which the ideas of Adam Smith or Karl Marx have shaped human lives over the past century. The more significant the idea, and the more directly it impinges upon human dignity, the more unwaveringly must it be held to the standard of the true and the good.
At root, this litmus concerns fundamental principles of nonnegotiable importance. In a society that has reached a consensus on these foundations, a vibrant diversity emerges in their expression and application—the white light that refracts into the varied colors of the spectrum. When we agree upon a free press and open access to information, for example, means of communication become ever more varied and sophisticated—from courier post to iPhones, from newspapers to this webpage. Augustine’s famous maxim, Ama Deum et fac quod vis (Love God and do what you will), speaks to this holy freedom. On the big questions, however, the public square today affords no such luxury, as we find common ground increasingly less common. And in this arena an assumption of good will simply doesn’t suffice. Aristotle rightly noted that everyone acts for a perceived good. But in the objective order, those perceptions are often misguided, ill-informed, or just plain wrong.
True charity does not permit tolerance in this regard, because it seeks the moral good of another even when that causes offense. Yet charity does not equal niceness. The latter is an unwillingness to offend at any cost, whereas charity, exercised with prudence, casts a wider net. When Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, he showed charity for those souls regardless of who took umbrage. Likewise, his actions in the temple, which caused great offense, were nonetheless ordered to a greater good that took precedence over the complacency of his coreligionists. It wasn’t nice of Jesus to call the Pharisees blind guides, whited sepulchers, and a brood of vipers. But his forceful articulation of a truth, even an uncomfortable truth, aimed at saving their souls and the souls of his listeners.
True charity not only puts the good of others before your own comfort, it also puts the good of others before their own comfort. This surely flies in the face of popular morality, where the only remaining sin is to offend. (How many public pseudo-confessions begin with the protasis, “If my actions offended anyone . . .” Rare indeed is the apology for having done something simply wrong.) When truth itself, which alone sustains free society, faces serious challenge, the only recourse can be a steadfast and unyielding intolerance.
With characteristic panache, Fulton Sheen, in his 1931 essay “A Plea for Intolerance,” reveals that this confusion is hardly new:
America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance—it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded. . . . Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil, a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons, never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error. . . . Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.
These are strong words, but their strength is vigorous, not brutish. Only the persuasion and attraction of truth’s inherent force can effectively combat error—proposing, never imposing. And for those who genuinely care about the welfare of society, that proposal is not an option. In his encyclical Libertas, Leo XIII affirmed that error has no rights. People in error have rights—the right to be treated charitably and respectfully, for one—but the unchallenged persistence of error, manifested in a live-and-let-live permissiveness, holds grave consequences for a society no longer tethered to the truth. Yet in the face of increasing polarization, how do these claims reconcile with, and find meaning in, our pluralistic culture?
A healthy pluralism does not accept the status quo, too often applied as a thin veneer masking moral insouciance. Especially when it concerns principles themselves, pluralism can only be a means toward the goal of societal consensus, a shared conviction of truth. In this light, President Obama’s words at Notre Dame were most curious. He said, “I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.” Why can’t it? More importantly, why shouldn’t it? If the president really believes that abortion is a right, what value does he see in a perduring opposition? Does he wish there were a more vigorous debate over slavery? Are we somehow impoverished because so few are calling for the repeal of the 19th amendment? For those who recognize the unborn child’s inviolable right to life, that debate cannot go away soon enough. There is no inherent worth in a multiplicity of opposing viewpoints, a Baskin Robbins offering thirty-one flavors.
Panegyrics to this type of diversity always leave me a little puzzled. A schizophrenic society, unable or unwilling to grasp reality, cannot be expected to advance very far. I hardly think we would benefit, for example, by a sudden glut of Flat Earthers. Such nonsense only impedes growth, for one cannot build when the foundation has not been laid. Only full confidence in earth’s circumference allows science, travel, and trade to expand and flourish. Otherwise we remain stagnant, atrophied and forever afraid of falling off the edge.
A truly pluralistic society, then, does not shy away from these challenges, but engages them eagerly in constructive dialogue. And only a shared desire for truth prevents dialogue from becoming self-efflating subjectivism, in which one shares his thoughts and feelings. The resulting overtures to dialogue here devolve into mere talking about talking. Such circular logic leads to an insular society, closed in on itself, morally adrift and unable to stay afloat.
Without a conviction about the first things, tolerance becomes apathy, pluralism becomes ignorance, and dialogue becomes cacophony. Only when truth’s guidance infuses these terms with their careful distinctions and proper direction can they help raise society to a higher plane—right thinking preceding right living. Without glossing over differences, a polarized society and a polarized Church must honestly and forthrightly embark on an uncompromising quest for the truth that alone secures real and lasting peace. This pursuit itself, this conversation, is never the end. But such a conversation, undertaken with sincerity, respect, and genuine love of others, is not at all a bad place to begin.
Brian A. Graebe is a seminarian of the Archdiocese of New York, studying at St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Reb Jackie Lays it Out In Black & White

Papa Benedetto - "Openness to life is at the centre of true development"

28. One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples. It is an aspect which has acquired increasing prominence in recent times, obliging us to broaden our concept of poverty[66] and underdevelopment to include questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways.
Not only does the situation of poverty still provoke high rates of infant mortality in many regions, but some parts of the world still experience practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion. In economically developed countries, legislation contrary to life is very widespread, and it has already shaped moral attitudes and praxis, contributing to the spread of an anti-birth mentality; frequent attempts are made to export this mentality to other States as if it were a form of cultural progress.
Some non-governmental Organizations work actively to spread abortion, at times promoting the practice of sterilization in poor countries, in some cases not even informing the women concerned. Moreover, there is reason to suspect that development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures. Further grounds for concern are laws permitting euthanasia as well as pressure from lobby groups, nationally and internationally, in favour of its juridical recognition.
Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away[67]. The acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual.
Seems to me this says that you can't vote for a health care plan that would include paying for abortions or euthenasia if you are a Catholic.

Fr. Pavone - What Health Care Is & Isn't

Abortion is Not Health Care

Fr. Frank Pavone
Priests for Life
Some people think abortion is health care. But what disease does abortion cure? What medical problem does abortion solve? There is actually no proven medical benefit to this procedure.A medical procedure is supposed to help the body to do something it’s supposed to do but is having trouble doing. Abortion is just the opposite. The body is already doing what it’s supposed to do — that is, nourish and protect the unborn child. Abortion stops all that, killing the child and harming the mother. It is the reverse of a medical procedure.Before doing any procedure, a physician has to know what medical purpose and benefit the procedure will provide to the patient. There is no disease that abortion cures. It should not in any way be considered health care.–Fr. Frank


Why Without Language to Prohibit It, Abortion IS A Part of ObamaCare

Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist - 7/27/2009 10:00:00 AM

"America, America, God shed His grace on thee."
Many demoralized souls felt over recent months that this famous appeal in "America the Beautiful" had been falling on deaf ears.
But we've had a miracle. The socialized medicine freight train, chugging down the track with seeming insurmountable inevitability, has been, for the moment, derailed.
And, miraculously, the derailment has occurred because of values as well as economics.
Conservative Democrats have parted company with their liberal colleagues because the healthcare legislation in process will bust our federal budget and deliver new federal abortion funding.
Subsidized healthcare delivered through a proposed government insurance plan would inevitably mean abortion funding in the standard benefits package. The only way around this would be explicit language to prohibit it.
Attempts by Republicans in three House committees to insert such language were defeated, despite a handful of conservative Democrats joining them.
Now a broad coalition of pro-life organizations has initiated a campaign to fight any healthcare legislation permitting new government abortion funding.
President Obama has called this an attempt to "micromanage" healthcare benefits. Planned Parenthood has echoed these sentiments.
Is the concern of these pro-life groups legitimate? You bet it is.
Pro-abortion forces have been forever calling abortion healthcare. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, defines its business as providing "reproductive healthcare."
Or consider our president's thinking.
Then-Senator Obama stated his disagreement with the Supreme Court decision banning partial-birth abortion because it "departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women."
Partial-birth abortion is a procedure in which a doctor kills an infant near birth by smashing its skull and sucking out its brains. The Supreme Court acted in 2007, thank God, to make this illegal. The decision permits the procedure if the life of the mother is danger.
Yet this is unacceptable to our president. He wants vaguely defined health considerations, beyond the question of the life of the mother, to permit what is essentially murder.
For pro-aborts, murder, if the victim is an unborn child at any stage of development, is healthcare.
So, yes, we can be sure that, without specific prohibiting language, legislation that directs new federal funding to individuals for healthcare will cover abortions.
There is particular irony that Obama and others championing healthcare reform insist that it's unrelated to abortion concerns.
We hear a lot of talk about eliminating waste and having more preventative healthcare. But the most powerful healthcare initiative we could get is the last thing they will propose: Traditional family values. The same values undermined by the liberal abortion regime and moral relativism they promote.
A wide array of studies shows married individuals physically and mentally healthier than singles.
Among the 47 million uninsured that we hear so much about, two thirds are unmarried.
And, according to a recent study on the uninsured published by the Employment Policies Institute, "lack of health insurance is not likely to be the major factor causing higher mortality rates among the uninsured." The higher mortality rates tie more closely to behavior that leads to poverty, such as poor education and dysfunctional lifestyles.
Let's capitalize on the miracle that has occurred with a truth initiative about our healthcare crisis.
New government bean counters, programs, taxes, spending, and subsidies are not the answer.
For those currently on private plans, we need less, not more government. More competition and health savings accounts. For the uninsured, break the cycle of poverty with school choice and rebuilding families in poor communities.
Healthcare is not about bureaucrats but about individual human behavior. We should be talking about a culture of life and the traditional values that sustain it.


Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Unfortunately This Is Not an Agatha Christie Murder Mystery

This is reality! Where else but in the Humpty Dumpty* US Congress world of pro-abortion politics would a bill like this be considered "common ground" & working to reduce abortions. For more about the bill & what to do go to the post In the crosshairs: Let's defeat the DeLauro-Ryan scam bill! at American Papist. NOTE: The article below refers to it as HR 2035. But according to RollCall it is HR #3312. Ditto at Thomas, H.R.3312 . So I would suggest using that number, not the one below.

Pro-Life Groups Warn: Ryan-DeLauro "Common Ground" Bill a Red Herring

By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 2009 ( - Pro-life and Catholic leaders have come out swinging against a bill offered by two pro-abortion House Democrats that deceptively proposes "common ground" on abortion, promoting policies to "reduce the need for abortion" that pro-life leaders say would actually lead to its increase.
The "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act" (S.1032, H.R.2035) was introduced by Democrat Congressmen Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro this week. First introduced in 2006, the bill purports to "reduce the need for abortion" by increasing funds for the Title X Family Planning Program, which funds Planned Parenthood, and set aside grants for explicit sex education.
A Catholic who once held a pro-life record, Ryan has more recently begun voting in favor of abortion, including a recent vote supporting taxpayer funding for abortion in Washington, D.C. According to executive director Kristen Day of Democrats for Life, Ryan was recently fired from the group's advisory board due to his increasingly pro-abortion voting record.
Nonetheless, Ryan has been inaccurately touted as a pro-life sponsor to the bill, adding to its credibility as a compromise measure. A press release connected to the legislation quoted Rev. Joel Hunter, an "antiabortion-rights evangelical pastor" on the White House Faith-Based Advisory Council, who praised the bill as "a prototype for how we can approach things in the future." "When you realize you need someone who's been an adversary to help you advance your own projects, that's a big deal," said Hunter.
Pro-life advocates, however, have issued a sharp rebuttal to the "pro-life" tag attached to Ryan and his legislation.
"The lie that Tim Ryan is pro-life is very convenient for the true backers of [the bill]," said Jack Smith of the Catholic Key blog.
Susan Willis of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' pro-life office roundly condemned Ryan's measure, which has won the support of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. "It should be called the Planned Parenthood Economic Stimulus Package of 2009," wrote Willis.
The bill proposes not only to increase Title X funds, but also would make abortion and contraception a universal Medicaid requirement - a move that would revive some of the most troubling aspects of Obama's healthcare bill should it fail.
Ultimately, according to its sponsor, the bill is primarily geared toward increasing birth control access. In discussing the legislation, Ryan told Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball" on May 19 that "we have to have birth control and contraception offered to these poor women who don't have access to contraception," and claimed, "there's no other way we're going to be able to reduce [abortions]."
However, international studies have found that greater access to contraception fails to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions, and even leads to their increase. The causal relation is particularly evident in the U.K., where several studies have shown aggressive contraceptive and sex education campaigns have only led to a worsening of the country's teen pregnancy epidemic. Similarly, Swedish researcher Karin Edgardh found that despite the broad contraceptive availability and education in Sweden between 1995-2001, the country experienced a 33% increase in teen abortions.
The surveys suggest that encouraging contraceptive use facilitates sexual promiscuity, which leads to higher pregnancy rates as contraceptives have a significant risk of failure, particularly with extended use. Ultimately, abortion rates rise as a necessary fallback.
NARAL, the most prominent pro-abortion lobby group in America, praised the Ryan-DeLauro bill as "reaching across the divide to find common-ground solutions to prevent unintended pregnancy." "After the tragic murder of Dr. George Tiller at his church in Kansas, now more then ever, we challenge groups opposing legal abortion to put a stop to the inflammatory rhetoric and the use of violence, and instead to embrace a new and more responsible approach to the debate," they added.
Such calls to establish "common ground" on the abortion issue and "reduce the need for abortions" - rather than reducing abortions as such - have become the hallmark of pro-abortion lobby's and the Obama administration's dissembling on initiatives that expand abortion.
"The next sad chapter of the Obama 'common ground/abortion reduction' charade is ready to be written," wrote Catholic commentator Deal Hudson this week. "For the Democrats and the White House to promote a health care bill that will cause the number of abortions to skyrocket, while whistling the common ground tune, is a tactical deception to appease Catholics, nothing less."
Earlier this week, Ryan and four other Democrats issued a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that called for a "common ground solution" to the abortion debate in the healthcare bill.
"We believe that a common ground solution is to include language in the final legislation that makes clear that no insurance company will be required to pay for an abortion except in extraordinary circumstances -- nor will they be prohibited from paying for an abortion, so long as health insurance plans offered in the exchange that choose to provide abortion coverage pay for those services with funds that are separate and distinct from any federal subsidies," they wrote. The letter did not mention excluding abortion from the government-funded healthcare plan.
The letter's content diverged significantly from a June 25 letter directed by 20 true pro-life Democrats demanding that House leaders both explicitly exclude abortion from the government's essential healthcare package, and not allow taxpayer monies to fund abortion.
While deceptive tactics are being used by some in the Democratic Party, opposition to the healthcare bill's abortion mandate from the party's truly pro-life members may be the key to pro-life victory. Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan stated this week that there are at least 39 pro-life Democrats willing to buck enormous pressure from their own party and vote against the bill if the abortion mandate issue is not addressed.
During the "Stop the Abortion Mandate" webcast Thursday, Congressmen Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Joe Pitts (R-PA) told pro-lifers not to be deceived by "fake amendments and deceptive language that will appear to be pro-life, but in fact will be empty promises."
"Some in Congress are now trying to cobble together a phony compromise on the abortion mandate and abortion funding," warned Smith. "While we have yet to see the language, please be aware.
"If past experience is any guide, if past is prologue, as it very often is, we need to be exceedingly wary and alert concerning bogus legislative language that purports to be pro-life. Passing airtight language is paramount."
See related coverage:
Pro-Life Democrats Unite to Protect Unborn Children in Healthcare Restructuring
* For those who may not understand, I am refering to where Alice met Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass". When questioned by Alice that what he said didn't mean what he said it means Carroll wrote the following response: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'" For Humpty Dumpty "glory" meant “there's a nice knock-down argument for you!”. For these guys reducing the number of abortions actually means increasing that number.


"Overpopulation is a Myth."

"Overpopulation is a Myth."

PRI Gives Fresh Face to Sound Population Theory
FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, July 27, 2009 ( - The Population Research Institute (PRI) has released the first in a series of educational videos intended to disprove what it calls the "myth" of overpopulation.
The brief feature "Overpopulation: the Making of a Myth" refutes common misconceptions about world population, poverty, resource consumption, and the United Nations.

PRI is best known for being the group responsible for uncovering the United Nations Population Fund's (UNFPA) cooperation with the Chinese government's coercive population control techniques. Its on-the-ground investigations in China led to the defunding of UNFPA by the Bush administration.
"We wanted it to be accessible," says developer and primary animator Joseph Powell about the video. "The myth of overpopulation is so prevalent, and yet nobody even has a clear idea about what overpopulation means.
"The idea of a world with no room or food is terrifying, but all it takes is checking the facts see how silly the whole thing is. We hope this video will do that for people."
The video, available at PRI's YouTube page, is also available at its accompanying website, "Overpopulation is a Myth." The site presents more facts and figures behind the video in an accessible fashion. It also features downloadable content and links to scientific sources.
"With the site, we really wanted to reach out to people, especially students and teachers, who feel alone in defending this position," explains Joel Bockrath, PRI's Vice President for Operations. "We wanted to give people easily viewable and downloadable content that they could use to back up their arguments."
"All in all," says Steven Mosher, PRI's president, "we think this is a great resource for those who know that the overpopulation argument is false, but haven't had access to the facts and figures they need to argue against it. Precisely since the information is being presented in a humorous, engaging way, we feel like this could go a long way toward disproving a myth that has caused untold suffering throughout the world."

Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey (D-Y) Puts CoverUp of Sanger's Eugenics in Congressional Record

Rep. Lowey (D-NY) Defends Eugenics, Margaret Sanger
Thursday, 23 July 2009, 18:41

On Tuesday (21 July 2009) in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey of New York read an article in defense of Margaret Sanger, eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood.
Lowey began by praising Sanger for “her commitment to improving the health and lives of women” and stated that she was “proud to recognize Margaret Sanger for her tireless efforts on behalf of women and for fighting for those unable to fight for themselves.”
The article, entitled “Margaret Sanger - Setting the Record Straight” is by Dr. Ellen Chesler, a lecturer at Hunter College of the City University of New York. Chesler argues that Sanger’s reputation has been “savaged by opponents who deliberately misrepresent the history of birth control and circulate scurrilous, false accusations about her on the Internet.” Chesler excuses Sanger’s most vile comments as being “lifted out of context and tragically misquoted.”
Unfortunately for Dr. Chesler, this negative view of Sanger is rooted not in the Internet but in Sanger’s own books and actions. Sanger was an outspoken Social Darwinist who condemned charity because it supported a certain population that she termed “human waste.” In her 1922 book, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger devoted a full chapter to this viewpoint called “The Cruelty of Charity.” “Organized charity itself,” she wrote, “is a symptom of a malignant social disease… the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the ‘failure’ of philanthropy, but rather at its success.”
Sanger’s solution to her perceived problem? Mass coercive sterilization and segregation. She stated, “…we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”* By supporting coercive sterilization, Sanger can hardly be called a liberator who wished for women to have “the ability to plan their pregnancies, and ultimately control their own destiny,” as Rep. Lowey asserts.
Dr. Chesler states that Sanger’s language had “no intended racial, ethnic or class content.” However, according to New York Times journalist Edwin Black, Sanger surrounded herself with some of the eugenics movement’s most outspoken racists and white supremacists, including Lothrop Stoddard and Leon Whitney. Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy was invited to join the board of directors of Sanger’s American Birth Control League, a position he retained for years.
Margaret Sanger herself wished for the League and other organizations such the Eugenics Research Association and American Eugenics Society to unite, seeing that the groups had much in common. Leon Whitney, the executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society, reported to colleagues that Sanger “felt very strongly about eugenics and seemed to see the whole problem of birth control as a eugenical problem… Mrs. Sanger took very kindly to the idea [of the merger] and seemed to be as enthusiastic about it was I was.”*
This is the same Leon Whitney who commented on the Nazi gassing of 50,000 to 100,000 of those who were deemed unfit by saying, “While we were pussy-footing around … the Germans were calling a spade a spade.”
Dr. Chesler calls Sanger “actually an unusually advanced thinker on race for her day” and cites examples in which Margaret Sanger opened birth control clinics for rural black women in the south. Dr. Chesler seems to naively attribute these actions to a concern for blacks rather than a desire to control the black population, despite the evidence that Sanger’s views leaned toward the latter. In a letter to Clarence Gamble dated 1939, Sanger said, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Even after her organization changed its name to Planned Parenthood, Sanger still pushed a eugenics agenda. In fact, in reviewing the goals of International Planned Parenthood, Sanger replied to a colleague, “I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion as what a Planned Parenthood Federation should want or aim to do, but I do not see how we could leave out in its aims some of the eugenic principles that are basically sound in constructing a decent civilization.”*
Thanks to the efforts of those such as Margaret Sanger, some 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized and thousands were barred from marriage or forcibly segregated into “colonies.”
This is the woman whose name appears on the award recently given to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This is the woman that Representative Lowey praises and recognizes “for her tireless efforts.”
Let Representative Lowey know the truth about Margaret Sanger by contacting her office at 202-225-6506.
*Quotations from War Against the Weak, by Edwin Black


There Is No Right to the Death of Your Choice

Archbishop Vincent Nichols
We have seen a significant defeat in Parliament for proposals to legalise assisted suicides, and learnt of the joint suicides at the Dignitas apartment in Switzerland of the eminent conductor Sir Edward Downes, and his wife, Lady Downes. While there are many ethical, medical and legal issues surrounding assisted suicide, at its heart lies the notion that we have an absolute moral entitlement to have whatever kind of death we choose. This is surely the triumph of the philosophy that proclaims individual rights above all other considerations and the relativist insistence that what is good is a matter of personal judgment.
The consequences of this attitude lie at the root of the weakening of social structures, including the decline of the family as the core unit, the rise of anti-social behaviour, the pursuit of profit at all cost and the increasing intolerance of non-materialist, philosophical or ethical views. It can be summarised as the age of convenience; the pursuit of what we want despite its cost and impact on others.
It is, perhaps, in matters of life and death that these issues stand out most starkly. Are we really masters of our destiny? Is human life just something we produce, whether by sexual intercourse or in a laboratory, and ultimately to be created, aborted or disposed of at will? Are the senses of wonder at new-born life, or of duty towards the weak in sickness and old age, misguiding instincts that we must overcome if they conflict with our own convenience? Consequently, are we losing the capacity and skills to care for others, especially the vulnerable elderly?
Once life is reduced to the status of a product, the logical step is to see its creation and disposal in terms of quality control. This raises important questions: Who is to decide? What value is to be put on suffering that is borne with patience, or on enduring love and care for those in distress and pain?
If my life has no objective value, then why should anyone else care for it? The notion of an absolute right to choose "a good death" may sound libertarian but it undermines society's commitment to support fellow members in adversity. And it encourages the abandonment of the ailing.
Once life is entirely subject to human decision in its beginnings and endings, then the horizon of hope is dramatically reduced. I may hope to be the agent of that decision. But the likelihood is that someone else will either take it for me, or guide me towards taking it. Once the coin of sovereignty over death has been minted, then it will be claimed by not a few.
Better by far to acknowledge the spiritual dimension of every human being; the capacity to go beyond the present, to search for and to cherish self-giving in love and to recognise that our better selves are formed and nurtured in a community, and not always one of our own choosing. This spiritual dimension enables us to recognise, in a way not visible to technological eyes, every human life as a gift to be cherished from its beginnings to its natural end. When we do this, we grow in our humanity, rather than lose it.
Dying is the most important step a person takes, for it is a step towards the ultimate fulfilment of our innate spiritual nature, our capacity to know God, to know the fullness of the mystery of all things. We have been created with this capacity and our best guide for living is to do nothing to dent, pervert or deaden it. The poet Lucretius said that "life is given to no one as freehold, we all hold it on leasehold". Accepting that life is a gift is a good start. Sadly these centuries-old truths about the nature of humanity are no longer common currency. But we can surely all of us recognise, whether we approach our lives with or without a transcendental faith, the serious ethical and social dangers to which the doctrine of unfettered personal autonomy is leading us.
The Most Rev Vincent Nichols is Archbishop of Westminster

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Defenders of the Eucharist are Defenders of Life says Vatican Cardinal

Complete LSN Interview with Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera

Formerly Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, Cardinal Cañizares is the current Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, that has competence over the way in which Mass is celebrated throughout the world. He was elevated to the cardinalate in 2006 by Pope Benedict XVI.
ROME, Italy, July 27, 2009 ( - With the help of a translator, the Cardinal kindly consented to speak with on July 24th at the offices of the Congregation on the Via della Conciliazione in Rome, down the road from St. Peter's Basilica and the Apostolic Palace.
* * *
LSN: What is the connection between faithfulness to the norms of the liturgy and faithfulness to the Church's moral teachings?
Cardinal Canizares Llovera: There is no doubt about the connection.
To recognise what is the Eucharist is to recognise Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of God that became man. Christ is the most absolute 'yes' of God to man. He is the revelation of God and the revelation of the truth about man. Man cannot be separated from God; man was created in the image and likeness of God.
In creation, God manifests Himself as love in favour of man. In His Son, the true image of the Father, we have been created in the image of the Son. For that reason, all human beings have a greatness and a dignity that cannot be separated or violated.
Jesus Christ shows the face of God that loves man to the utter extremes. The biggest demonstration of this love of Jesus for Man is seen on the cross, dying for man. But this love could not be destroyed or chained by death. It has triumphed over death. The love of Jesus, Son of God, brought to an extreme on the cross, shows how all men are loved by God with a love from which nothing and no one can separate us. Each man has been saved or repurchased by the blood of Christ, which is the blood of God. This is how much every human being is worth, the blood of God.
For that reason, between the Eucharist and the defence of life there is a link that cannot be separated. To live the Eucharist, is to enter in communion with Jesus Christ and as a consequence with His love. This is a communion of life and makes us participate in the life which is Christ. Divine life, eternal life, but at the same time it makes us be givers or carriers of love and defenders of life.
If the Christians would live all that the Eucharist means, we would be defenders of life in every moment.
LSN: We were wondering since the issue is very serious in the US and growing more so in Britain and Canada if there is planned a definitive statement or teaching on the reception of Communion by politicians and public figures who reject the Church's teaching on life. The issue still hasn't been resolved since the US election in 2004.
Cardinal Canizares Llovera: I think that the strongest words are found in St. Paul: one who goes to the Eucharist and is not properly prepared, duly prepared, "he eats his own condemnation." This is the strongest thing that we can say and what is the most truthful statement.
When the Church states that to take part in or request an abortion, to take an active role in one way or the other, the person incurs automatically excommunication. This means that politicians should become aware and they should be helped to become aware of the gravity of their conduct. When they approve laws against life, in favour of abortion or euthanasia, priest and bishops should say this.
I don't know if there's going to be a document on the politicians who are in favour of abortion, but the politicians have to be conscious of the teachings of the Church that I have just pointed out.
LSN: There's a conflict in the US now. There are some bishops who are saying they will speak to, educate and address the issue with these people but they refuse to refuse. Others are saying, 'No, you may not receive Communion in my diocese". How is that conflict going to be resolved?
Cardinal Canizares Llovera: I cannot judge one group of bishops or the other group of bishops but I think that all of us know what has to be done, or should be done. In the presence of cases of public sinners ... at the same time we don't know what is happening in the consciences of those politicians. I understand the prudence with which we have to act. But I think also that it is our duty to clarify their consciences. To help the person to act in accordance with a right and true conscience. Bishops have a function to help the due formation of conscience. To form consciences in such a way that people should act in accordance with the truth.
The pope JPII in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae offers criteria that show how politicians should act with regards to the questions of life. Also the congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction when Cardinal Ratzinger was the prefect on the way politicians should act on these questions of life. Also the most recent encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, when he was referring to abortion offers criteria in such a way that politicians should act in accordance with truth.
I believe that the Pauline principle, that gives the title to the most recent encyclical of Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, should be the principle that guides us to speak about this question. This principle, Caritas in Veritate [Love in Truth] should be the principle first for politicians when they come to Communion, and second it should be the rule for bishops when they decide to give or to withdraw Communion.
LSN: Is there a movement in the Vatican to return to the traditional manner of reception of Communion? (With the recipient kneeling and the host placed directly on the tongue.)
Cardinal Canizares Llovera: There is no resolution that forbids giving Communion in the mouth. In the same way, there is no norm that forbids Communion in the hand. Neither can be forbidden. Neither one nor the other. This means that Communion in the mouth has a long history and tradition that expresses in a profound way the sense of adoration, reverence in the presence of the body of Christ. Everything that is at stake in the real presence of Christ. If Communion in the mouth goes with the gesture of kneeling, it expresses in a stronger way, with stronger force, the real presence of Christ, the sense of adoration, the participation in the body of Christ that offers Himself for us.
If the papal liturgy is a sign, an indication for all the Church, we should promote Communion kneeling and in the mouth. But, this does not mean not permitting or forbidding Communion in the hand if it is done with due respect. With a previous gesture of adoration. This could be kneeling, or a genuflection or with a deep bow. And also in the moment of receiving Communion, the right hand should be placed under the left hand forming a cross expressing in this way the recognition of the real presence of the body of Christ offered for us. We should take care that no particle should be lost. And the body of Christ should be received in front of the priest.
We should recognise that frequently Communion in the hand many times is not received in this way.
It is very lamentable.
LSN: We know that over the years a great many people have seen and complained about abuses of the liturgy at Mass. What can the faithful do when they see these?
Cardinal Canizares Llovera: They should say to the priest immediately after Mass as a part of fraternal correction. If it is not possible, they should say to the bishop. If the bishop does not act, they should come here and report it to the Congregation.
There are two documents that are important. One by the Cong. for Divine Worship, Redemptionis Sacramentum, that talks about some of these abuses and talks about the rights of the faithful and how they should act.
The other is Sacramentum Caritatis, of Benedict XVI that also gives criteria on the way that the Eucharist is abused.
We should all fight to avoid abuses against the Eucharist. It is the holiest, greatest, most important [thing] in the Church and in life. We should respect the Eucharist and the rules and discipline of the Church that give the warranty of ecclesial communion that has its sources, its roots, its truth in the Eucharist, in the celebration of the Eucharist, in the rite that the Church has indicated.
LSN: Is the liturgical revolution over? Is the Church in general becoming more balanced about the liturgy?
We're still suffering it but also we are in a moment of great hope. The Pope Benedict XVI makes the renewal of the spirit of liturgy to rekindle in the conscience of all the true sense of the liturgy. Which should help to impose a great new unstoppable liturgical movement. Nevertheless, we have not yet applied in a truthful way the teachings of Vatican II read in continuity with the tradition of the Church. This is the commitment of this congregation continuing the [work of the] Holy Father that presides over us in faith and charity and over the whole Church.
We want a Church that should be present in the world, that is ready to transform the world and [lead] the renewal of mankind in accordance with God's will. This will not be possible without Sacrosanctum Concilium, without liturgy, adoration, without putting God in the centre of all, living of God's gift, and offering Him whatever we are in order to bring about His will.
In other words, there is no new humanity and there is no hope for man that is not grounded in God that would come from God and would return everything to God as His glory. The future of humanity is in the liturgy. When we read the last encyclical of the Holy Father, we can understand that the liturgy occupies a central role in the concerns of the Holy Father.

Sen. Grassley to Vote No on Sotomayer


TO: Reporters and Editors
FR: Beth Levine, for Senator Grassley
RE: Sonia Sotomayor nomination
DA: July 27, 2009

Senator Chuck Grassley today released the following comment regarding his decision to vote against the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court .

“I’ve had the opportunity to vote on many judges and Justices since becoming a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We confirmed a great number of them. I had hoped to be able to vote for Judge Sotomayor to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court, but after a thorough review of the hearing record and her cases, speeches and writings, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.

“My vote must be based on the nominee’s respect for and adherence to the Constitution and judicial restraint. I question if Judge Sotomayor will be able to set aside personal biases and prejudices to decide cases in an impartial manner and in accordance with the Constitution.

“At her confirmation hearing, I asked specific questions about the property rights of private citizens afforded by the Fifth Amendment. My colleagues asked detailed questions about the now famous Ricci case, the right to privacy and the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I was not convinced that Judge Sotomayor understands the rights given to20Americans under the Constitution, or that she will refrain from expanding or restricting those rights based on her personal preferences. I am not certain that Judge Sotomayor won’t allow those personal beliefs and preferences to dictate the outcome of cases before her. There’s no question that nominees have become quite adept at dodging our questions, but her lack of clear and direct answers to simple questions regarding the Constitution were troubling. Some of her answers were so at odds with statements she has made over the years, that it was difficult to reconcile them.

“Nearly 20 years ago, then Judge David Souter talked during his confirmation hearing about courts “filling vacuums” in the law. That concept greatly worried me, because courts should never fill voids in the law left by Congress. Since Justice Souter has been on the Supreme Court, his decisions have proven that he does believe that courts do indeed fill vacuums in the law. My vote has come back to haunt me time and time again. So, I’ve asked several Supreme Court nominees about courts filling vacuums at their hearings. Her lukewarm answer left me with the same pit in my stomach I’ve had with Justice Souter’s rulings that I had hoped to have cured with his retirement, and reinforced my concerns with her hearing testimony, cases and speeches.

“Only time will tell which Sonia Sotomayor will be on the Supreme Court. Is it the judge who proclaimed that the court of appeals is where “policy is made,” or is it the nominee who pledged “fidelity to the law?” Is it the judge who disagreed with Justice O’Connor’s statement that a wise woman and a wise man will ultimately reach the same decision, or is it the nominee who rejected President Obama’s empathy criteria?

“There’s no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the credentials on paper to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. But, her nomination hearing left me with more questions than answers about her judicial philosophy, and I cannot support her nomination.”
Grazie Sen. Grassley for doing the right thing.

The Truth IS Out There, & the Abortion Industry Doesn't Want It Seen, or Heard

They know that if it does, then women are less likely to have an abortion. This is a part of their standard repertoire. Anything that tells the truth is either a lie, or too confusing or misleading according to their standards. When they say this is too confusing they are saying is that women are dumb & can't be expected to properly understand the facts of what is going on with an abortion. What they won't admit is that women are smart, & when presented with all the facts, like any that for any major medical decision, they will see the truth & almost always not have the abortion.
As for the bit about the cost, that is another red herring. Choices Medical Clinic in Iowa City recently got their 4D, state of the art, ultrasound machine from Siemens for $41,000. The list price was $130,000. As for the heartbeat monitors, I found a home monitor on the internet for $449. & several sites offer home rentals. Nor is it unusual for the doctor to do so during a pregnancy if WebMD is to be believed. (Electronic Fetal Heart Monitoring) So much for their incionsistant arguement. This is more proof of how the abortion industry doesn't want the truth out there, will try to prevent it from getting out by any means necesary & how they are willing to demean the very people they claim they want to help in doing so.
PS: I suspect they will shop arround to find a willing activist judge. Hopefully the appeals courts will quickly throw it out if they do.

by Steven Ertelt Editor

Fargo, ND ( -- A Fargo, North Dakota abortion business has filed a lawsuit to stop women from having the ability to see an ultrasound of their unborn children before the have an abortion. Gov. John Hoeven signed the measure into law in May after the state House easily approved the ultrasound measure.
The House backed House Bill 1371, on a strongly bipartisan 77-9 vote in February and the Senate signed off on the bill in April. The measure is designed to help women learn the humanity of their unborn child and to consider abortion alternatives.
While most abortion businesses do an ultrasound before an abortion is done on a woman and her unborn child, that doesn't mean the mother will have a chance to see it. Rep. Bette Grande, a Republican sponsoring House Bill 1371, hopes the bill changes that.
However, the Red River Women's Clinic, the only abortion business in the state, filed a lawsuit to stop the law from taking effect on August 1.
With help from the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, a pro-abortion legal group, the abortion center is asking for a temporary injunction against the ultrasound measure.
The law requires that a woman seeking an abortion be offered the opportunity to see an ultrasound of her unborn child and hear the fetal heartbeat, which can begin as early as eighteen days after fertilization.
Red River claims the law is confusing and would limit a woman's ability to get an abortion. It also claims allowing a woman to hear the heartbeat of her baby is inconsistent with best medical practices and claims the cost of the equipment is too burdensome.
Mary Spaulding Balch, an attorney with the National Right to Life Committee, talked with about the lawsuit.
“It’s unclear why a clinic, which claims to care about women, would be afraid to offer their patients all the vital and relevant information before performing a life-changing and intrusive medical procedure," she said.
“Diagnostic ultrasounds and listening to the fetal heartbeat provides mothers accurate information about the development of their unborn child. Why is the abortion industry afraid of these tools?” she asked.
Balch says the new North Dakota law joins six other states with similar provisions.
“We want women to be informed, and receive all possible information available - much of which has historically been omitted by those in the abortion industry,” Balch said. “It is shameful in our society that women cannot rely on abortionists to voluntarily provide them with information that would help them make the best decision for themselves and their unborn children."North Dakota Right to Life, the North Dakota affiliate of Concerned Women for America and the North Dakota Catholic Conference supported the bill along with the North Dakota Family Alliance.
Pro-life advocates say the bills are important because the Red River Women’s Clinic is expected to set a record for the number of abortions it is doing annually.
The abortion center has been doing abortions for just over ten years and did a record 1,358 abortions in 2003 and another 1,238 abortions last year.
Related web sites:North Dakota Legislature -
North Dakota Right to Life -
National Right to Life -

Not The Consistant Ethic of Life I would Like to See

But this is the consistant ethic you would expect from the "culture of death". What it basicly boils down to is dollars & cents. The people behind the Health Care Plan know that the only way to truly keep costs down is to eliminate those who will cost the most to care for, the elderly. The next step will be to tell the elderly (as has already been done in England by 1 ethicist) that they have a duty to die. It will go from passive promotion to actively killing them next. & of course, they more people you kill by abortion the fewer people that will need health care in the 1st place.
The longer it takes for ObamaCare to get through Congress, the more time there will be for the truth to get out. No wonder Obama wants to push through this bill that will give the government total control over our lives. I hope I am wrong. But, if this goes through I can see a 21st century equivalent of the Nazi death camps for the elderly. Run by a company like that in the 60s movie "Soylent Green" that starred Charlton Heston, Edward G. Robinson & Chuck Connors.

by Steven Ertelt Editor

Washington, DC ( -- Two Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are confirming reports that the health care restructuring bill the House is currently considering promotes euthanasia. A leading patients rights advocate is worried about the effects of the legislation.
Betsy McCaughey, the former New York lieutenant government who is now a patient's rights advocate, notes that the government-run health care plan would require "end of life" counseling for seniors.
The counseling, she says, would be focused on telling seniors how to end their lives sooner.
In a statement sent to House Republican Leader John Boehner Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter confirm those fears.
"Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration’ and other end of life treatments,'" the pair say.
That section "may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign."
"This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law. At a minimum this legislative language deserves a full and open public debate – the sort of debate that is impossible to have under the politically-driven deadlines Democratic leaders have arbitrarily set for enactment of a health care bill," they state.
The members of Congress call the section a throwback to 1977 when the old Department of Health Education and Welfare proposed federal promotion of living wills for cost-savings purposes described as "enormous."
At that time, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago decried this effort by saying, "'The message is clear: government can save money by encouraging old people to die a little sooner than they otherwise would. Instead of being regarded with reverence, and cherished, human life is subject in this view to a utilitarian cost-benefit calculus and can be sacrificed to serve fiscal policy and the sacred imperative of trimming a budget."
Boehner and McCotter are especially concerned about the provision given that Oregon and Washington have legalized assisted suicide and Montana has given conditional approval depending on the outcome of a state Supreme Court decision.
“With three states having legalized physician-assisted suicide, this provision could create a slippery slope for a more permissive environment for euthanasia, mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide because it does not clearly exclude counseling about the supposed benefits of killing oneself," they say.
"Health care reform that fails to protect the sanctity and dignity of all human life is not reform at all," the conclude.In section 1233 of the tri-committee health care bill, a government-run "Advance Care Planning Consultation" is created.
McCaughey, in an interview with former presidential candidate Fred Thompson on his radio show warned people to "protect their parents" from the measure and said the consultation is essentially an attempt to kill off elderly Americans."One of the most shocking things is page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory absolutely that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session," she said. "They will tell [them] how to end their life sooner.
The bill calls for the recommendation of "palliative care and hospice" in the mandatory counseling sessions, which is pain relief as patients die.
The House bill requires "an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title."
The measure also recommends a discussion on "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration," which suggests that elderly patients could be advised not to receive it, which would hasten death.
ADDED 1:51 am: Apparently I am not the only 1 who sees the Soylent Green connection. Just came across an article at entitled Barack Obamas Soylent Green Rationing Rooms.


Monday, July 27, 2009

Then There Is This Attack on Free Speech in Maryland

Meanwhile, over in Maryland freedom of speech is also coming under attack, 7 the victims are fighting back as well. Meanwhile notice the media bias in the article. The Pro-life groups are labeled as anti-abortion. While that is a part of being Pro-life, it is only part. But by labeling us this way they make it easier to paint us as extremists who only care about stopping abortion & not people who are concerned about mother as well as child.

Anti-Abortion Group Sues Over Arrests
18 Arrested Last Year While Trying To Protest

21 July 2009
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- A pro-life group is suing several Maryland agencies, saying they've been unfairly targeted by State Police.
Defend Life Inc. and its associates admitted their message is controversial Tuesday but said state troopers are stepping on their First Amendment rights.
The graphic images often used by anti-abortion groups on roadsides are hard to miss and forget, 11 News reporter John Sherman said, but Defend Life insisted that is their point and that they have the constitutional right to make it.
On Aug. 1, 18 protesters were arrested on Route 24 in Bel Air. Minutes before, troopers confronted the protesters. Videotape showed a trooper tried to tell them they needed a permit to protest on the roadside.
More graphic roadside posters were shown in Annapolis on Tuesday as the group announced its lawsuit.
"We must pay attention to these ugly realities … or we're condemned to not deal with the worst kind of human rights disasters that could ever occur," said the group's attorney, Tom Brejcha.
The group is suing Bel Air, the Harford County Sheriff's Department and the Maryland State Police over what happened last year.
They said they'll be returning to Bel Air next week -- hopefully, with a different outcome.
"We're coming back to Bel Air. We're going to have 15 stops on our 15th annual tour beginning Monday, July 27 through Friday, July 31. Our very last stop again this year will be Bel Air," said Defend Life member Jack Ames.
"Because my speech was deemed offensive by police, I was arrested, imprisoned, shackled and strip-searched twice. I'm here today to make sure that justice is done and that no one else trying to protect innocent life has to go through what I went through," said protester Angela Swagler.
Police said they couldn't comment, citing the litigation.

How NOT To Represent Your District

Apparently Perriello flunked Civics 101. Instead of respecting their Constitutionally respected rights he is acting like a strunz & trampling on their rights as well as the Constitution that was written to protect those rights. Perriello might want to pay attention to what the 1st Amendment says about freedom of speech, as well as the right of the people peaceably to assemble & the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Editorial: Thomas Perriello's Dirty Politics

Sometimes it requires a focused, local eye to get the big picture.
In this telling scenario, the big picture has come into clear focus in the small town of Danville, Virginia, where the local Tea Party movement has become the scorn of the politics-as-usual liberal leadership—specifically freshman Representative Tom Perriello, a Democrat “representing” the 5th District of his state.
As chronicled extensively by the ALG News Bureau, the Tea Party movement is a nationwide, patriotic grassroots effort aiming to beat back the tide of liberal policies that seek to grow government and simultaneously squelch individual freedom. Nigel Coleman of Danville is one of those patriots spearheading the movement.
Eager to participate in the American right of public discourse, Mr. Coleman and other concerned Tea-Partiers attended a local town-hall forum on environmental issues hosted by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, and Representative Perriello. Rather than having their questions answered, Mr. Perriello ignored Mr. Coleman’s group and called upon big business owners, familiar faces, and those in “reserved seats”. Some of those questioned even admitted to having been contacted earlier and informed that they would be called upon to ask their so-called “real questions.”
Clearly upset at being ignored, the patriotic crew retrieved some signs from their cars and began to protest outside of the farcical town-hall meeting. Mr. Coleman and his group were immediacy confronted by law enforcement and ordered to leave the public meeting—to which they politely complied.
After leaving, the group met up at a nearby restaurant to discuss the situation and decide how they should proceed. As they soon noticed, an unmarked police car was spotted in the parking lot and an officer was recording and calling in Mr. Coleman’s and the others’ license plate numbers.
Shifting from merely upset to outright livid at what was intimidation tactics plain and simple, the Danville Tea Party issued a press release voicing their disgust. And they have a right to be disgusted.
Not only has Representative Perriello displayed his disdain for free speech and opposing voices, he has gone a step further and aggressively sought to punish it. It is a tried-and-true despotic practice that has no place in America.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Perriello already has quite a track record of opposing free speech and public dissent. As ALG News Bureau has previously reported, Mr. Perriello came under fire in a National Republican Congressional Committee ad criticizing the Representative for voting in favor of a Cap-and-Trade system that would make electricity rates “skyrocket.”
Angered by the ad, Mr. Perriello contacted local television stations and demanded that the ad be removed from television circulation or drastically altered. And that, of course, is what is known as censorship.
Simply put, Tom Perriello is one small—but very telling—example as to why the hard left in America cannot be trusted. All too often, they show nothing short of contempt for open and honest discourse and routinely trounce the rights of the American people in favor of advancing their Big Government agendas. Hopefully others around the nation will follow Mr. Coleman’s examples, pick up their signs and start voicing that public dissent that those on the left so voraciously despise.
Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill once famously said, “All politics is local.” In the ease of one Thomas Parriello of Danville, Virginia, that might be better read, “All dirty politics is local.”

Nigel Coleman et al are not letting their rights be trampled by someone who would rather tear up the Constitution than live by it. I applaud those efforts. Perriello is acting just as arrogantly as King George & Parliament did back in the 1700s. Periello might do well to remember that Virginia was 1 of the leading states in the fight back againt that bout of tyranny. Otherwise he will end up on the same side of the historical ledger as they did.
Here is a news release I received from Mr. Coleman:

For Immediate Release:
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Contact: Nigel Coleman 434-549-2853
Danville TEA Party leaders ask Attorney General to investigate use
of state police, county sheriff's deputies to harass Perriello critics

DANVILLE, Va. – Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va., may be using the state police and local law enforcement to harass and intimidate citizens who have publicly expressed opposition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trillion-dollar health care reform legislation, a local TEA Party leader charged Tuesday in a letter urging state Attorney General Bill Mims to conduct a formal investigation.
Danville TEA Party chairman Nigel Coleman told Mims that Virginia State Police officers Monday came unannounced to the home of another member of the group to question him about attending a town hall meeting Saturday in Blairs which featured Perriello and two Obama cabinet secretaries.
"All Americans should be concerned when a congressman uses the state police to intimidate citizens and suppress dissent against a government takeover of our health care.," Coleman said. "No American should have to fear that the police will show up at his door because he's dared publicly disagree with some politician's political agenda."
Saturday, Coleman and other TEA Party leaders were refused an opportunity to ask Perriello a question during the event, and then were instructed by a plainclothes police officer to leave the property when they attempted to display signs urging the congressman to follow the Constitution and oppose Pelosi's "socialized medicine scheme." Coleman said he and the others peacefully complied, but were followed to a restaurant by an officer in an unmarked car, who then exited his vehicle, walked over to the activists' cars, and called in their license plate numbers over the phone.
Coleman said he contacted Perriello's Danville office Monday to request a meeting with the congressman to protest the police intimidation tactics used at the event and to ask why he and other TEA Party activists were told to leave.
Perriello's staff refused the request for a meeting, Coleman said, while assuring him that the office understood that he and other local TEA Party activists pose no threat to the congressman.
"First, I was disappointed at Saturday's event that Congressman Perriello refused to take hard questions from his constituents about where he stands on Nancy Pelosi's trillion-dollar socialized medicine scheme," Coleman said. "But I am outraged by the police intimidation tactics that have only escalated since."
"Now, as of Monday, Rep. Perriello refuses to even meet with us, while the police treat constituents who are simply exercising our Constitutional free speech rights as if we're terrorists," Coleman said.
"Citizens have the right to schedule a meeting with our elected officials whose salary we pay. Rep. Perriello needs to stop refusing to meet with us to answer the tough questions, and help us stop local and state police from suppressing our First Amendment free speech rights," he said.
Coleman organized two recent TEA party rallies, one on July 4th and another on July 17th at Perriello's Danville office to protest the upcoming socialized healthcare bill.
Coleman noted that at a similar TEA Party protest outside Perriello's Charlottesville office Friday, police appeared to order an estimated 60 local taxpayers to leave the parking lot. As reported Friday on the blog of The Schilling Show, a Charlottesville talk radio program:
"Approximately forty minutes into the event, Charlottesville police were called to the parking lot area. Unconfirmed reports from the scene tie at least one of the complaining phone calls directly to Congressman Tom Perriello's office staff. While the attending police officers (professionally and politely) compelled the gathered crowd to disperse, rally attendees grumbled at the prospect of their own congressman's office terminating their First Amendment free speech protest."

Letter from Nigel Coleman to Attorney General of Virginia, July 22, 2009. Headlines

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Get this widget!
Visit the Widget Gallery