Semantics is a big problem when talking about the reform of the Church. It is an axiom of Church discipline that the Church is always in need of reform, as it says in Lumen Gentium 8. But the ideas of what "reform" means to different people are so widely varied that at this point it is almost useless to speak of reform unless you are speaking with somebody who already agrees with you. There is a big difference between the reform imagined by Luther and Melancthon and the reform envisioned by St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. This ought to lead us to ask ourselves: what does it really mean to reform the Catholic religion?
Authentic Catholic reform is always viewed in terms of a going back to our roots. Not in the false and superficial way proposed by the heresy of archaeologism, wherein we simply shed whatever legitimate and organic developments came after the patristic period, but the kind of going back to our roots where we are consistently measuring our lives and spirituality against the level set by Christ and seeing if it measures up. We look to Christ's message, and also to how it was lived out by the great saints who came before us. This is why these people are saints: by their lives and holiness they witness to the truth and power of Christ's message and serve as worthy examples for all of us to emulate. True Catholic reform means we reevaluate our modern course of action in light of the heroes of ages past and bring ourselves back to that perennial standard, just as Teresa of Avila wanted to emulate the early hermits and St. Francis wanted to live in poverty as the Apostles. True Catholic reform takes the fullness of all that was good about the past and reconstitutes it in the present for the glory of God and the life of the Church. This was the mentality of the Counter-Reformation and the work of St. Ignatius Loyola.
But what about the other definition of reform, the one used by progressive Catholics? To them, reform usually means a break from the past. This "reform" often is a code-word for a radical break with what came before, which is viewed as time-bound, too ritualistic and superstitious for modern man. This view of reform means that we reevaluate the past in light of the present, and we jettison from our Tradition whatever does not meet the perceived tastes and needs of modern man. For example, take this blog Progressive Catholic Reflections, which calls for "Twenty Church Reforms." Now, I am all for reform, but what reform does he have in mind? Well, listed among his twenty reforms are the ordination of women priests, the imposition of democratic elections of bishops, and the giving of more authority to local episcopal conferneces and synods (God forbid!). So, these ideas of reform are clearly not the same thing as the ideal of reform posed by the great saints and doctors of our glorious history. For some, reform means throwing out things, deciding what to pitch and what to keep, as if we were cleaning out an old garage full of junk. What a tragic ecclesiological view that sees God's Church not as a temple filled with treasures but as a garage in need of spring cleaning!
I do not believe I am saying anything new hear, but merely explicating what we have all noticed and been irritated with for years. All of the atrocities carried out in the name of reform, all of the altars removed, the tables set up, the heresy preached, the discipline relaxed, all in the name of a false and vain reform! Let's return to a true Catholic vision of reform, one in which we do not seek to throw away the past because it does not conform to our depraved and deviant generation, but one which weeps over the sins of our generation and humbly begs God for the grace to live up to the stature and example set by the heroes of old.
Our reform is more of a renovation, or a restoration, like a man who buys an old Victorian house and restores all of the original woodwork and trim and paints it anew so that all can enjoy the beauty that it had when it was young. On the other hand, the progressive "reform" is like a man who buys an old Victorian house, demolishes it, and builds a crappy little Pulte house in place of it that looks like every other house in the world, all the while insisting that it is "basically the same house." Our reform of the Church is nothing other than the restoration of her great heritage.
St. Teresa de Avila, ora pro nobis!
Posted by BONIFACE at 9:49 AM
Labels: Tradition
Monday, December 28, 2009
Where we all should be going, "back to the pre-VaticanII"
PREPARING FOR CONFIRMATION: THE RIGHT WAY
A good friend of mine is preparing his son (age 9) for Confirmation next Spring in the Old Rite under the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The text being used for kids 9-12 is the “Baltimore Catechism #2: Explained by Fr. Bennet Kelley, C.P.” (Catholic Book Publishing Corp.). The teenagers and adults in the class are using the “Baltimore Catechism #3: Father Connell’s Confraternity Edition.” (The Seraphim Company, Inc.) An additional book is used, “Preparation for Confirmation According to the Baltimore Catechism” by Angelus Press.
I cannot say enough about the quality of these books. For teenagers and adults, the Baltimore Catechism #3 is hands down the greatest “piece of gear” (a Marine Corps term) ever devised in English for teaching the Faith. It will put to shame anything currently available. Most of the post Vatican II books were and are absolutely horrendous, having watered down the Faith to almost complete irrelevance.
I would urge those of you who do not have these great tools, to buy them for your home and your family, especially those with kids! The best place around to find these are Tan Books, and the Angelus Press (www.angeluspress.org).
posted by PreVat2
A good friend of mine is preparing his son (age 9) for Confirmation next Spring in the Old Rite under the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). The text being used for kids 9-12 is the “Baltimore Catechism #2: Explained by Fr. Bennet Kelley, C.P.” (Catholic Book Publishing Corp.). The teenagers and adults in the class are using the “Baltimore Catechism #3: Father Connell’s Confraternity Edition.” (The Seraphim Company, Inc.) An additional book is used, “Preparation for Confirmation According to the Baltimore Catechism” by Angelus Press.
I cannot say enough about the quality of these books. For teenagers and adults, the Baltimore Catechism #3 is hands down the greatest “piece of gear” (a Marine Corps term) ever devised in English for teaching the Faith. It will put to shame anything currently available. Most of the post Vatican II books were and are absolutely horrendous, having watered down the Faith to almost complete irrelevance.
I would urge those of you who do not have these great tools, to buy them for your home and your family, especially those with kids! The best place around to find these are Tan Books, and the Angelus Press (www.angeluspress.org).
posted by PreVat2
Sunday, December 27, 2009
No abortions would be better!
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com )- Now that the health care bill has made it out of the U.S. Senate, only one more revision stands between it and President Obama's desk – but once again the most troubling section appears to be the language governing abortion funding, which could still bring about the legislation’s ultimate demise.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) re-affirmed this week that he is holding together a group of conservative Democrats who have pledged to take down any version of the bill that contains government funding for abortion, which the Senate version does.
“Well, if all the issues are resolved and we’re down to the pro-life view or, I should say, no public funding for abortion, there’s at least 10 to 12 members who have said, repeatedly, unless this language is fixed and current law is maintained, and no public funding for abortion," Stupak told CNSnews.com Tuesday. "There’s 10 or 12 of us, and they only passed the bill by 3 votes, so they’re going to be short 8 to 9, maybe 6 to 8 votes. So they [Democrats] do not have the votes to pass it in the House.”
The House's expectations for health reform are set to clash with the Senate's on a variety of issues, particularly the public option and a surtax on the wealthy. While House Democrat leaders seem willing to compromise on these issues the liberal members of their party are less convinced. "The Senate health care bill is not worthy of the historic vote that the House took a month ago," wrote Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) Wednesday in an op-ed for CNN.com .
But the abortion issue raises perhaps the most clear-cut objection to the final bill version. A slew of false compromises and proposed funds-segregating schemes has been unable to silence objections to the legislation’s treatment of abortion in all stages of the bill's development.
In a Politico piece Tuesday, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) reaffirmed that the Senate health bill has thrown the Hyde amendment "to the winds and, with it, the hard-fought efforts of Henry Hyde and the pro-life movement to maintain this basic protection for the unborn."
"If the issue of abortion funding brings down this bill, it will be a victory for the cause of protecting innocent human life," wrote Brownback. "That would be an irony that Henry Hyde would have greatly appreciated."
Nonetheless, Stupak acknowledged that his Democrats were "under a lot of pressure" from the White House to keep mum about the abortion issue - pressure that may explain the sudden capitulation of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) Friday evening after weeks of holding tough for Hyde-amendment language.
Instead of a Hyde-amendment ban on abortion funding, the Senate bill's abortion language offered by Sen. Nelson gives states the ability to opt out of providing insurance cover for abortions, and institutes a funds-segregating scheme for premium dollars that go to abortion. Also, as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted in an interview with BlogHer Monday, all members of the new health insurance exchange will still be required to pay into abortion under the Senate bill.
Organizations such as Planned Parenthood and NOW have expressed opposition to the Nelson language. However, some suspect that the abortion lobby is simply bolstering the image of the Nelson language as a "compromise," similar to the half-hearted objections they raised to the House's Ellsworth amendment. Tellingly, abortion groups have not encouraged campaigning against the language, in stark contrast to their massive uprising against the House's Stupak language.
"I would chalk up NOW's opposition as token outrage to help abortion amendment (sic) seem like an actual compromise. As a Democratic aide wrote today:'Pro-choice Dems are cool with it;' that includes Barbara Boxer and Maria Cantwell Patty Murray," wrote John McCormack on the Weekly Standard blog.
On the other side, leaders of the pro-life lobby such as the National Right to Life Committee have hotly rejected the language as entirely inadequate, and are calling for the demise of the bill. "The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems," said the NRLC's Douglas Johnson, who called Nelson's language "light years removed" from the Stupak-Pitts amendment.
A Quinnipac poll this week showed overwhelming public opposition to government funding of abortion, by 72%-23%.
The Family Research Council noted that both the Senate and House bills are "seriously flawed," as both "still allow rationing of health care for seniors, raise health costs for families, mandate that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, offer counsel about assisted suicide in some states, do not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seek to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives."
The timetable for the bill's future remains uncertain. Speaking to her fellow House Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi projected a best-case scenario would place a final passage by the end of January or the beginning of February.
In anticipating the Democrats' strategy for getting the bill to the finish line, John Fund at the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday warned that "Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are."
"Luckily," he continued, "there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn't require the House to swallow the Senate's bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee" - namely, skipping the conference committee and dumping one version of the bill to give the other an all-or-nothing shot at becoming law.
In this case, since Sen. Reid appears to walk a thinner tightrope in keeping together enough votes for passage, the House version could be almost entirely discarded - and the Stupak Hyde-amendment language would go with it.
"Serious dialogue isn't what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now," wrote Fund. If leaders decide to skip the conference, he said, "it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory."
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com )- Now that the health care bill has made it out of the U.S. Senate, only one more revision stands between it and President Obama's desk – but once again the most troubling section appears to be the language governing abortion funding, which could still bring about the legislation’s ultimate demise.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) re-affirmed this week that he is holding together a group of conservative Democrats who have pledged to take down any version of the bill that contains government funding for abortion, which the Senate version does.
“Well, if all the issues are resolved and we’re down to the pro-life view or, I should say, no public funding for abortion, there’s at least 10 to 12 members who have said, repeatedly, unless this language is fixed and current law is maintained, and no public funding for abortion," Stupak told CNSnews.com Tuesday. "There’s 10 or 12 of us, and they only passed the bill by 3 votes, so they’re going to be short 8 to 9, maybe 6 to 8 votes. So they [Democrats] do not have the votes to pass it in the House.”
The House's expectations for health reform are set to clash with the Senate's on a variety of issues, particularly the public option and a surtax on the wealthy. While House Democrat leaders seem willing to compromise on these issues the liberal members of their party are less convinced. "The Senate health care bill is not worthy of the historic vote that the House took a month ago," wrote Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) Wednesday in an op-ed for CNN.com .
But the abortion issue raises perhaps the most clear-cut objection to the final bill version. A slew of false compromises and proposed funds-segregating schemes has been unable to silence objections to the legislation’s treatment of abortion in all stages of the bill's development.
In a Politico piece Tuesday, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) reaffirmed that the Senate health bill has thrown the Hyde amendment "to the winds and, with it, the hard-fought efforts of Henry Hyde and the pro-life movement to maintain this basic protection for the unborn."
"If the issue of abortion funding brings down this bill, it will be a victory for the cause of protecting innocent human life," wrote Brownback. "That would be an irony that Henry Hyde would have greatly appreciated."
Nonetheless, Stupak acknowledged that his Democrats were "under a lot of pressure" from the White House to keep mum about the abortion issue - pressure that may explain the sudden capitulation of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) Friday evening after weeks of holding tough for Hyde-amendment language.
Instead of a Hyde-amendment ban on abortion funding, the Senate bill's abortion language offered by Sen. Nelson gives states the ability to opt out of providing insurance cover for abortions, and institutes a funds-segregating scheme for premium dollars that go to abortion. Also, as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted in an interview with BlogHer Monday, all members of the new health insurance exchange will still be required to pay into abortion under the Senate bill.
Organizations such as Planned Parenthood and NOW have expressed opposition to the Nelson language. However, some suspect that the abortion lobby is simply bolstering the image of the Nelson language as a "compromise," similar to the half-hearted objections they raised to the House's Ellsworth amendment. Tellingly, abortion groups have not encouraged campaigning against the language, in stark contrast to their massive uprising against the House's Stupak language.
"I would chalk up NOW's opposition as token outrage to help abortion amendment (sic) seem like an actual compromise. As a Democratic aide wrote today:'Pro-choice Dems are cool with it;' that includes Barbara Boxer and Maria Cantwell Patty Murray," wrote John McCormack on the Weekly Standard blog.
On the other side, leaders of the pro-life lobby such as the National Right to Life Committee have hotly rejected the language as entirely inadequate, and are calling for the demise of the bill. "The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems," said the NRLC's Douglas Johnson, who called Nelson's language "light years removed" from the Stupak-Pitts amendment.
A Quinnipac poll this week showed overwhelming public opposition to government funding of abortion, by 72%-23%.
The Family Research Council noted that both the Senate and House bills are "seriously flawed," as both "still allow rationing of health care for seniors, raise health costs for families, mandate that families purchase under threat of fines and penalties, offer counsel about assisted suicide in some states, do not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers and seek to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives."
The timetable for the bill's future remains uncertain. Speaking to her fellow House Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi projected a best-case scenario would place a final passage by the end of January or the beginning of February.
In anticipating the Democrats' strategy for getting the bill to the finish line, John Fund at the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday warned that "Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are."
"Luckily," he continued, "there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn't require the House to swallow the Senate's bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee" - namely, skipping the conference committee and dumping one version of the bill to give the other an all-or-nothing shot at becoming law.
In this case, since Sen. Reid appears to walk a thinner tightrope in keeping together enough votes for passage, the House version could be almost entirely discarded - and the Stupak Hyde-amendment language would go with it.
"Serious dialogue isn't what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now," wrote Fund. If leaders decide to skip the conference, he said, "it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory."
Friday, December 18, 2009
Talk about corruption, and dishonesty!
Despite clear evidence of corruption in the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia denial is underway
One Climategate Email Trumps All the Denials
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, December 17, 2009
Despite clear evidence of corruption in the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia denial is underway. But they cannot deny the contents of one email.
It was from Tom Wigley, CRU, to Michael Mann on June 25, 2009. Mann was worried about a call to testify at a Congressional hearing organized by the Chairs of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations about Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s (M&M) challenge to the hockey stick science.
Mike,
There are broader implications of this, so it is important to respond well. This is serious. They are on to us and you are batting for the team. It is a pity you have to be the guinea pig after what you have gone through already, but you have many supporters. Earlier emails determine McIntyre is a liar with an agenda and his attacks are wrong and unfair. They consistently portray themselves as victims. I would not advise a legal route. Wise, because AGW claims don’t bear legal scrutiny. It also implies guilt. I think you need to consider this as just another set of referees’ comments and respond simply, clearly and directly. But now they were not selecting the referees. These comments are unnecessary if you’re telling the truth. They are also parental in their tone, but Wigley is the grandfather of CRU, the IPCC and the entire climate science manipulation.
On the science side the key point is that the M&M criticisms are unfounded. It was clear they did not understand McIntyre and McKitrick’s challenge as this confirms. Although this may be difficult, remember that this is not really a criticism of you personally, but one aspect of a criticism of the foundations of global warming science by people both inside and outside of Congress who have ulterior motives. Wigley reassures, but he can’t accept there are legitimate scientific questions. A scientist believing the science is settled is troubling. There may, in fact, be an opportunity here. As you know, we suspect that there has been an abuse of the scientific review process at the journal editor level. The method is to choose reviewers who are sympathetic to the anti-greenhouse view. These last two comments are incredible. He is accusing others illegality, but it is precisely what they were doing. Recent papers in GRL (including the M&M paper) have clearly not been reviewed by appropriate people. Who are “appropriate people”? The ones they choose. Wigley ultimately got the GRL editor James Saiers fired.
Concerns about Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) were firmly entrenched and their ability to block other publications well established. Mar 31, 2004 Jones wrote to Mann,“Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.”
We have a strong suspicion that this is the case, but, of course, no proof because we do not know *who* the reviewers of these papers have been. This was the charge made against those editors who published the articles the CRU gang produced. They refused to disclose the reviewers. The emails detail how they made sure “appropriate” reviewers were provided, knowing they would not be revealed. Perhaps now is the time to make this a direct accusation and request (or demand) that this information be made available.
If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all. Who are these people? There never were any who denied the greenhouse effect. Consider the illogic of this. Here he is playing Devils advocate and using the same illogic in all his other suggested defenses. He is saying, although all the other paleo constructions generally agree he would argue that they are all wrong. Amazing. I attach also a run with MAGICC using central-estimate climate nmodel parameters (DT2x = 2.6 degC, etc.—see the TAR), and forcings used by Caspar in the runs with paleo-CSM. I have another Figure somewhere that compares MAGICC with paleo-CSM.
The agreement is nearly perfect (given that CSM has internally generated noise while MAGICC is pure signal). The support for the hockey stick is not just the paleo reconstructions, but also the model results. They ignore the failure of models to recreate past climate conditions (validation). In several instances they accept model results over real data. As Dr Roy Spencer wrote,”But most of the talks presented followed the recipe that has become all too common in recent years: analyze the output of climate models that predict substantial global warming, and simply assume the models are somewhere near correct.” If one takes the best estimates of past forcing off the shelf, then the model results show the hockey stick shape.
But these are models that don’t include major forcings such as the Milankovitch Effect of changing Sun/Earth relationships. No tuning or fudging here; this is a totally independent analysis, and critics of the paleo data, if they disbelieve these data, have to explain why models get the same result. Because they’re programmed the same and leave out most forcings. Of course, von Storch’s model results do not show such good century timescale agreement, but this is because he uses silly forcing and has failed to account for the fact that his model was not in equilibrium at the start of the run (the subject of Tim Osborn et al.‘s submitted paper). This is a pain in the but (sic), but it will all work out well in the end (unintentional pun - sorry). How dare they ask questions? Good science will prevail. Finally an accurate comment, but as with all Wigley’s introverted expectations not as he anticipated. Best wishes.
One Climategate Email Trumps All the Denials
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, December 17, 2009
Despite clear evidence of corruption in the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia denial is underway. But they cannot deny the contents of one email.
It was from Tom Wigley, CRU, to Michael Mann on June 25, 2009. Mann was worried about a call to testify at a Congressional hearing organized by the Chairs of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations about Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s (M&M) challenge to the hockey stick science.
Mike,
There are broader implications of this, so it is important to respond well. This is serious. They are on to us and you are batting for the team. It is a pity you have to be the guinea pig after what you have gone through already, but you have many supporters. Earlier emails determine McIntyre is a liar with an agenda and his attacks are wrong and unfair. They consistently portray themselves as victims. I would not advise a legal route. Wise, because AGW claims don’t bear legal scrutiny. It also implies guilt. I think you need to consider this as just another set of referees’ comments and respond simply, clearly and directly. But now they were not selecting the referees. These comments are unnecessary if you’re telling the truth. They are also parental in their tone, but Wigley is the grandfather of CRU, the IPCC and the entire climate science manipulation.
On the science side the key point is that the M&M criticisms are unfounded. It was clear they did not understand McIntyre and McKitrick’s challenge as this confirms. Although this may be difficult, remember that this is not really a criticism of you personally, but one aspect of a criticism of the foundations of global warming science by people both inside and outside of Congress who have ulterior motives. Wigley reassures, but he can’t accept there are legitimate scientific questions. A scientist believing the science is settled is troubling. There may, in fact, be an opportunity here. As you know, we suspect that there has been an abuse of the scientific review process at the journal editor level. The method is to choose reviewers who are sympathetic to the anti-greenhouse view. These last two comments are incredible. He is accusing others illegality, but it is precisely what they were doing. Recent papers in GRL (including the M&M paper) have clearly not been reviewed by appropriate people. Who are “appropriate people”? The ones they choose. Wigley ultimately got the GRL editor James Saiers fired.
Concerns about Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) were firmly entrenched and their ability to block other publications well established. Mar 31, 2004 Jones wrote to Mann,“Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.”
We have a strong suspicion that this is the case, but, of course, no proof because we do not know *who* the reviewers of these papers have been. This was the charge made against those editors who published the articles the CRU gang produced. They refused to disclose the reviewers. The emails detail how they made sure “appropriate” reviewers were provided, knowing they would not be revealed. Perhaps now is the time to make this a direct accusation and request (or demand) that this information be made available.
If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all. Who are these people? There never were any who denied the greenhouse effect. Consider the illogic of this. Here he is playing Devils advocate and using the same illogic in all his other suggested defenses. He is saying, although all the other paleo constructions generally agree he would argue that they are all wrong. Amazing. I attach also a run with MAGICC using central-estimate climate nmodel parameters (DT2x = 2.6 degC, etc.—see the TAR), and forcings used by Caspar in the runs with paleo-CSM. I have another Figure somewhere that compares MAGICC with paleo-CSM.
The agreement is nearly perfect (given that CSM has internally generated noise while MAGICC is pure signal). The support for the hockey stick is not just the paleo reconstructions, but also the model results. They ignore the failure of models to recreate past climate conditions (validation). In several instances they accept model results over real data. As Dr Roy Spencer wrote,”But most of the talks presented followed the recipe that has become all too common in recent years: analyze the output of climate models that predict substantial global warming, and simply assume the models are somewhere near correct.” If one takes the best estimates of past forcing off the shelf, then the model results show the hockey stick shape.
But these are models that don’t include major forcings such as the Milankovitch Effect of changing Sun/Earth relationships. No tuning or fudging here; this is a totally independent analysis, and critics of the paleo data, if they disbelieve these data, have to explain why models get the same result. Because they’re programmed the same and leave out most forcings. Of course, von Storch’s model results do not show such good century timescale agreement, but this is because he uses silly forcing and has failed to account for the fact that his model was not in equilibrium at the start of the run (the subject of Tim Osborn et al.‘s submitted paper). This is a pain in the but (sic), but it will all work out well in the end (unintentional pun - sorry). How dare they ask questions? Good science will prevail. Finally an accurate comment, but as with all Wigley’s introverted expectations not as he anticipated. Best wishes.
Safe Abortions?
December 17, 2009
New Paper Links UN Promotion of "Safe" Abortion to Maternal Deaths
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A recent submission to the United Nations (UN) Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) provides evidence of the potentially fatal consequences of "safe" abortion promoted by UN agencies, and includes a list of 113 studies linking abortion dangerous complications such as pre-term birth in subsequent pregnancies.
"The encouragement by [the UN Population Fund] UNFPA and [the World Health Organization] WHO of the use of mifepristone (RU-486, Mifegyne) and misoprostol (Cytotec) as ‘safe’ abortifacients in medically resource poor nations is unconscionable" the paper says, "and a violation of the human right to health of women."
Submitted by Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) [publisher of the Friday Fax] and authored by Donna Harrison, M.D., President of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), the paper calls on the Human Rights Council "to defend the right to bodily integrity of all human beings from fertilization to natural death" and "refrain [from] supporting in law and policy measures…empirically proven to hurt rather than help pregnant women."
The paper reports that "in the first three years of 'safe' mifepristone (Mifegyne) abortions in the United States…one third of the women with adverse events (237) experienced severe bleeding requiring emergency surgery, half of these required hospitalization, and forty two women bled over half of their blood volume." What is more, a WHO study showed that "one out of every five women who had ‘safe’ misoprostol abortions failed to abort and required surgical intervention." In poor countries where women do not have access to emergency care or even skilled birth attendants, the paper concludes, "these events would be fatal."
WHO studies show that the top killers of women in childbirth are bleeding, hypertensive disorders, anemia and sepsis. Abortion – including "spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage – is tenth on the list and accounts for 5% of deaths. The paper says "it is scientifically, medically, and morally unacceptable to divert resources" from what is really needed to save women’s lives: skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetric care.
The leaders of UN member states explicitly rejected inclusion of "Universal Access to Reproductive Health" in the outcome document of the 2005 World Summit, the paper reports, because it "included a target to eliminate ‘unsafe’ abortion," which some UN bureaucrats "defined as any abortion in a country where abortion was not legal." Even though member states rejected the goal, "the monitoring mechanisms for achievement of [Millennium Development Goal] MDG 5 have nevertheless implicitly incorporated the targets related to that rejected goal" which amounts to "cultural imperialism" that "deprives member nations of their right and duty to evaluate medical and policy effects of induced abortion within their own religious, cultural, and regional contexts" the paper says.
The submission to OHCHR was made in response to its request for information relevant to a thematic study on "Preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights," which was called for in a UN Human Rights Council resolution last June. One veteran UN observer told the Friday Fax he welcomed the submission by C-FAM and AAPLOG, commenting that it helps address the paucity of alternative viewpoints
New Paper Links UN Promotion of "Safe" Abortion to Maternal Deaths
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A recent submission to the United Nations (UN) Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) provides evidence of the potentially fatal consequences of "safe" abortion promoted by UN agencies, and includes a list of 113 studies linking abortion dangerous complications such as pre-term birth in subsequent pregnancies.
"The encouragement by [the UN Population Fund] UNFPA and [the World Health Organization] WHO of the use of mifepristone (RU-486, Mifegyne) and misoprostol (Cytotec) as ‘safe’ abortifacients in medically resource poor nations is unconscionable" the paper says, "and a violation of the human right to health of women."
Submitted by Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) [publisher of the Friday Fax] and authored by Donna Harrison, M.D., President of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), the paper calls on the Human Rights Council "to defend the right to bodily integrity of all human beings from fertilization to natural death" and "refrain [from] supporting in law and policy measures…empirically proven to hurt rather than help pregnant women."
The paper reports that "in the first three years of 'safe' mifepristone (Mifegyne) abortions in the United States…one third of the women with adverse events (237) experienced severe bleeding requiring emergency surgery, half of these required hospitalization, and forty two women bled over half of their blood volume." What is more, a WHO study showed that "one out of every five women who had ‘safe’ misoprostol abortions failed to abort and required surgical intervention." In poor countries where women do not have access to emergency care or even skilled birth attendants, the paper concludes, "these events would be fatal."
WHO studies show that the top killers of women in childbirth are bleeding, hypertensive disorders, anemia and sepsis. Abortion – including "spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage – is tenth on the list and accounts for 5% of deaths. The paper says "it is scientifically, medically, and morally unacceptable to divert resources" from what is really needed to save women’s lives: skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetric care.
The leaders of UN member states explicitly rejected inclusion of "Universal Access to Reproductive Health" in the outcome document of the 2005 World Summit, the paper reports, because it "included a target to eliminate ‘unsafe’ abortion," which some UN bureaucrats "defined as any abortion in a country where abortion was not legal." Even though member states rejected the goal, "the monitoring mechanisms for achievement of [Millennium Development Goal] MDG 5 have nevertheless implicitly incorporated the targets related to that rejected goal" which amounts to "cultural imperialism" that "deprives member nations of their right and duty to evaluate medical and policy effects of induced abortion within their own religious, cultural, and regional contexts" the paper says.
The submission to OHCHR was made in response to its request for information relevant to a thematic study on "Preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights," which was called for in a UN Human Rights Council resolution last June. One veteran UN observer told the Friday Fax he welcomed the submission by C-FAM and AAPLOG, commenting that it helps address the paucity of alternative viewpoints
Viva Italia
December 17, 2009
Italian Supreme Court Decision Signals Sovereign Resistance to European Overreach
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A little-publicized decision by Italy's Constitutional Court last month may have significant implications concerning the direction of Europe, strengthening national sovereignty as a bulwark against transnational overreach by European institutions. It also signals the continued importance of national constitutions, despite the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty earlier this month.
In Sentenza N. 311, the Italian Constitutional Court stated that where rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) conflict with provisions of the Italian Constitution, such rulings "lack legitimacy." Sources close to the Italian judiciary told the Friday Fax that the decision was intended as a warning that activist rulings by the Strasbourg-based ECHR overstepping jurisdictional boundaries will not be given deference.
Sources point to the timing of the decision, which followed an early November ECHR ruling, Lautsi v. Italy, directing that crucifixes be removed from the Italian classroom. The Italian government is appealing that decision to the full Grand Chamber.
According to Roger Kiska, European legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, Lautsi is flawed on a number of grounds, including overreach – the ECHR is not a constitutional court – and its disregard for "the cultural sovereignty of each Member State." The Constitutional Court decision – which deals with civil service matters entirely unrelated to the crucifix case – signals that Italy may be prepared to break with the ECHR if it were to lose its appeal.
Kiska also notes that the ECHR recently heard arguments in the case A, B, & C v. Ireland, which involves a direct challenge to Ireland's constitutional protection of unborn life. The Italian court decision could embolden Ireland's Supreme Court in the event of an adverse decision.
Underlying the debate is the question of what role "subsidiarity" will play in post-Lisbon Europe. Subsidiarity is the notion that decisions are best made at the local level closest to the people affected by them, guaranteeing that national norms and values will not be overrun by top-down-dictates.
Observers note that the foundational documents of a united Europe – the 1957 Treaties of Rome establishing the European Economic Community – enshrine the concept of subsidiarity, and a protocol to the Lisbon Treaty states that European institutions shall "ensure constant respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality."
By asserting that Italy's Constitution is the final word when confronted with decisions by transnationalist bodies, the Constitutional Court is drawing a line in the sand similar to that drawn by the United States (US) Supreme Court in 2008, when it rejected a directive from the World Court in The Hague as incompatible with the US Constitution.
Italy has two High Courts – one dealing with constitutional issues, and a second, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, which is the court of final resort on all issues other than those with constitutional implications. The ECHR, a Council of Europe body, is distinct from the European Court of Justice, which is the European Union's highest court
Italian Supreme Court Decision Signals Sovereign Resistance to European Overreach
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A little-publicized decision by Italy's Constitutional Court last month may have significant implications concerning the direction of Europe, strengthening national sovereignty as a bulwark against transnational overreach by European institutions. It also signals the continued importance of national constitutions, despite the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty earlier this month.
In Sentenza N. 311, the Italian Constitutional Court stated that where rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) conflict with provisions of the Italian Constitution, such rulings "lack legitimacy." Sources close to the Italian judiciary told the Friday Fax that the decision was intended as a warning that activist rulings by the Strasbourg-based ECHR overstepping jurisdictional boundaries will not be given deference.
Sources point to the timing of the decision, which followed an early November ECHR ruling, Lautsi v. Italy, directing that crucifixes be removed from the Italian classroom. The Italian government is appealing that decision to the full Grand Chamber.
According to Roger Kiska, European legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, Lautsi is flawed on a number of grounds, including overreach – the ECHR is not a constitutional court – and its disregard for "the cultural sovereignty of each Member State." The Constitutional Court decision – which deals with civil service matters entirely unrelated to the crucifix case – signals that Italy may be prepared to break with the ECHR if it were to lose its appeal.
Kiska also notes that the ECHR recently heard arguments in the case A, B, & C v. Ireland, which involves a direct challenge to Ireland's constitutional protection of unborn life. The Italian court decision could embolden Ireland's Supreme Court in the event of an adverse decision.
Underlying the debate is the question of what role "subsidiarity" will play in post-Lisbon Europe. Subsidiarity is the notion that decisions are best made at the local level closest to the people affected by them, guaranteeing that national norms and values will not be overrun by top-down-dictates.
Observers note that the foundational documents of a united Europe – the 1957 Treaties of Rome establishing the European Economic Community – enshrine the concept of subsidiarity, and a protocol to the Lisbon Treaty states that European institutions shall "ensure constant respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality."
By asserting that Italy's Constitution is the final word when confronted with decisions by transnationalist bodies, the Constitutional Court is drawing a line in the sand similar to that drawn by the United States (US) Supreme Court in 2008, when it rejected a directive from the World Court in The Hague as incompatible with the US Constitution.
Italy has two High Courts – one dealing with constitutional issues, and a second, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, which is the court of final resort on all issues other than those with constitutional implications. The ECHR, a Council of Europe body, is distinct from the European Court of Justice, which is the European Union's highest court
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Get on Board and fight Pro-Abortion
Dear Fighter for the Unborn Child,
The Fourth World Conference on Women took place in Beijing, China 15 years ago. It was one of the great battles that pitted the anti-life feminists against the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement.
The enemies of unborn life tried at Beijing to get an international right to abortion. They LOST because pro-lifers defeated them.
Now, fifteen years later they are back.
In March 2010 — a mere 90 days from now — thousands of radical feminists will gather at UN headquarters in New York and try to make up what they lost then and have continued to lose.
These radical feminists will come from such awful organizations as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the worst of the worst,“Catholics” for Choice.
They will be joined by such powerful entities as the UN bureaucracy, pro-abortion UN agencies like UNFPA and sadly UNICEF, the combined might of the European Union and the World Health Organization.
They will be supported by billionaires like George Soros and huge foundations like Hewlett and Packard, Ford, Rockefeller and all the rest of the rogues-gallery of anti-lifers hard left.
There will be pro-lifers there, pro-lifers from around the world. And they will be fighting back. But they will be surrounded, outspent and outmanned.
We expect a desperate fight for two weeks in March.
And right in the middle of this fight will be the Friday Fax.
As those two weeks progress, it is likely that the only source of pro-life news coming out of that building will be from the Friday Fax. But oh what a megaphone is the Friday Fax!
We now have 200,000 subscribers. By then, I will be announcing an additional 50,000-100,000 new subscribers.
Not only will we be right in the thick of this nasty conference, we will be telling you EVERYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING.
What I am here to ask you is for your prayers, starting right now for the success in our battle against the anti-lifers at Beijing+15. Pray for the bravery of pro-life diplomats! There are many and they need your help. Pray for their courage in standing up to the world’s pro-abortion elite — those lovers of death.
The Fourth World Conference on Women took place in Beijing, China 15 years ago. It was one of the great battles that pitted the anti-life feminists against the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement.
The enemies of unborn life tried at Beijing to get an international right to abortion. They LOST because pro-lifers defeated them.
Now, fifteen years later they are back.
In March 2010 — a mere 90 days from now — thousands of radical feminists will gather at UN headquarters in New York and try to make up what they lost then and have continued to lose.
These radical feminists will come from such awful organizations as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the worst of the worst,“Catholics” for Choice.
They will be joined by such powerful entities as the UN bureaucracy, pro-abortion UN agencies like UNFPA and sadly UNICEF, the combined might of the European Union and the World Health Organization.
They will be supported by billionaires like George Soros and huge foundations like Hewlett and Packard, Ford, Rockefeller and all the rest of the rogues-gallery of anti-lifers hard left.
There will be pro-lifers there, pro-lifers from around the world. And they will be fighting back. But they will be surrounded, outspent and outmanned.
We expect a desperate fight for two weeks in March.
And right in the middle of this fight will be the Friday Fax.
As those two weeks progress, it is likely that the only source of pro-life news coming out of that building will be from the Friday Fax. But oh what a megaphone is the Friday Fax!
We now have 200,000 subscribers. By then, I will be announcing an additional 50,000-100,000 new subscribers.
Not only will we be right in the thick of this nasty conference, we will be telling you EVERYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING.
What I am here to ask you is for your prayers, starting right now for the success in our battle against the anti-lifers at Beijing+15. Pray for the bravery of pro-life diplomats! There are many and they need your help. Pray for their courage in standing up to the world’s pro-abortion elite — those lovers of death.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Commander in Chief? Of What? Toilets?
Cheerleader in Chief
by Wayne Simmons
12/10/2009
At no time in recent American military history has a speech delivered by a President of the United States done so much to distance our nation from victory and put the men and woman of the military and intelligence agencies in harm’s way.
President Obama’s big Afghanistan speech caused nary a tremble in the polls. Before he spoke, most Americans didn’t support him. And after? His popularity continues to sink.
It was positively painful to watch Gen. Stanley McChrystal try to explain how you can win by not losing in his Tuesday congressional testimony. He’s doing the president’s bidding, not following a leader who has a clear idea of how to win a war.
It’s not only that President Obama is naïve and ignorant of history and the roles of our military and intelligence communities in world affairs. It’s mostly his inability to lead.
Leadership isn’t an intangible: it’s the ability to convince and inspire people to follow. His legislative successes aren’t proof that he’s a leader. To the contrary: Obama has pronounced big ideas that were already on the liberals’ agenda page. He merely turned them loose and then failed to lead them in the particulars -- the practicabilities and costs -- of the ideas.
On everything from the phony “stimulus” package to socialist health care, Obama is a cheerleader, not a real leader. It’s not just because he is young. It’s that he’s ignorant of important principles and completely at odds with the fact that America is a superpower.
Just consider his Afghanistan speech in the context of his June Cairo speech. Obama is reaching out his open hand to the Islamic radicals in disregard of how many times they slap it away.
In 1899 at the age of 25, Winston Churchill wrote some of the most profound paragraphs of his life.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
~ The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan (1899), Volume II pp. 248-250.
At such a young age Churchill’s understanding of Islam and its goal of supreme world dominance is uncanny.
The leaders of “the greatest generation,” the generation that sacrificed hundreds of thousands of American men and women in World War II, understood the importance of achieving victory and of supporting the men and women sent to the front lines every day to protect our nation and the world from tyranny. There were no political considerations to determine how a President “felt” before ordering our nation to war against its enemies. When we were attacked on December 7, 1941, we responded with all of the might a great nation could muster.
Today we are in a Global War on Terror. The United States was attacked by Islamic terrorist’s on September 11, 2001, resulting in the deaths of almost 3,000 innocent men, women and children. One of America’s great war time leaders, President George W. Bush, along with a war time Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, responded. Their policies kept America safe for 8 years and liberated millions. Today, Barack Obama, giving a pallid imitation of a President, has chosen to appease our enemies around the world in his misguided effort to mollify those that would kill us.
The touchy, feely, feminization attitude that permeates American society has found its way to our military decision makers. Our institutions of war with long rich histories of producing courageous war fighters are now producing leaders that are being trained to better understand and be sensitive to our enemies feelings and concerns rather than how to defeat and destroy them.
There are very few leaders today who could have made the wrenching decisions to bomb Dresden, Tokyo or Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those decisions were instrumental in ending World War II and saved millions of American lives. The deaths of civilians as collateral damage while horrible and unfortunate are an intimate and inextricable part of war. Historians will continue to debate the number of lives that would have been saved had the Atomic bomb been ready and used earlier. How many American fathers, husbands, son’s and brothers would have survived had the war been shortened?
Afghanistan is arguably one of the most desolate, insignificant 4th world countries on our planet. It is not Kazakhstan, a country flush with gas and oil, diamonds and gold. Other than Kabul, it is a nation divided by tribes and regions, controlled by warlords. The Western dreams of a centralized government for Afghanistan are just that, dreams. After 9/11 the U.S. conquered Afghanistan killing or capturing most of those responsible for the attack on America and driving out the Taliban. Then we abandoned her like a West African aids victim. If America did not learn from the repercussions of abandonment and is not diligent and committed once again in its efforts to destroy the Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, then all of those who have died in Afghanistan and continue to die will die in vain.
At no time in U.S. history has an American president ever half heartedly expanded a war only to advise his enemy that the expansion is temporary. Obama’s decision to provide 30,000 more troops to help defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the correct decision if we expect to prevent safe haven for the terrorists. However, telegraphing his intentions to withdraw our troops in 18 months is misguided and will prove deadly to our soldiers and marines as well as our intelligence experts. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a successful military campaign that did not depend upon reliable, actionable intelligence. I can tell you from personal experience that it is virtually impossible to devise a human intelligence network, humint, when assets are convinced that there is no future or reason for them to cooperate with you.
The message to the warlords in the tribal regions of Afghanistan should be simple and clear. We are leaving. There will be no more American bloodshed in Afghanistan. If you want our continued financial assistance or our friendship, then you must not allow safe harbor to the enemies of the United States. If you do, there will be devastating consequences. There will be Dresden. And we must deliver.
Wayne Simmons was recruited by the CIA in 1973 while in the U.S. Navy. He became part of an Outside Paramilitary Special Operations Group where for 27 years he worked against Narco terroris's, Arms Smugglers, Counterfeiters, Cyber-terrorist's and Industrial and Economic Espionage.
by Wayne Simmons
12/10/2009
At no time in recent American military history has a speech delivered by a President of the United States done so much to distance our nation from victory and put the men and woman of the military and intelligence agencies in harm’s way.
President Obama’s big Afghanistan speech caused nary a tremble in the polls. Before he spoke, most Americans didn’t support him. And after? His popularity continues to sink.
It was positively painful to watch Gen. Stanley McChrystal try to explain how you can win by not losing in his Tuesday congressional testimony. He’s doing the president’s bidding, not following a leader who has a clear idea of how to win a war.
It’s not only that President Obama is naïve and ignorant of history and the roles of our military and intelligence communities in world affairs. It’s mostly his inability to lead.
Leadership isn’t an intangible: it’s the ability to convince and inspire people to follow. His legislative successes aren’t proof that he’s a leader. To the contrary: Obama has pronounced big ideas that were already on the liberals’ agenda page. He merely turned them loose and then failed to lead them in the particulars -- the practicabilities and costs -- of the ideas.
On everything from the phony “stimulus” package to socialist health care, Obama is a cheerleader, not a real leader. It’s not just because he is young. It’s that he’s ignorant of important principles and completely at odds with the fact that America is a superpower.
Just consider his Afghanistan speech in the context of his June Cairo speech. Obama is reaching out his open hand to the Islamic radicals in disregard of how many times they slap it away.
In 1899 at the age of 25, Winston Churchill wrote some of the most profound paragraphs of his life.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
~ The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan (1899), Volume II pp. 248-250.
At such a young age Churchill’s understanding of Islam and its goal of supreme world dominance is uncanny.
The leaders of “the greatest generation,” the generation that sacrificed hundreds of thousands of American men and women in World War II, understood the importance of achieving victory and of supporting the men and women sent to the front lines every day to protect our nation and the world from tyranny. There were no political considerations to determine how a President “felt” before ordering our nation to war against its enemies. When we were attacked on December 7, 1941, we responded with all of the might a great nation could muster.
Today we are in a Global War on Terror. The United States was attacked by Islamic terrorist’s on September 11, 2001, resulting in the deaths of almost 3,000 innocent men, women and children. One of America’s great war time leaders, President George W. Bush, along with a war time Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, responded. Their policies kept America safe for 8 years and liberated millions. Today, Barack Obama, giving a pallid imitation of a President, has chosen to appease our enemies around the world in his misguided effort to mollify those that would kill us.
The touchy, feely, feminization attitude that permeates American society has found its way to our military decision makers. Our institutions of war with long rich histories of producing courageous war fighters are now producing leaders that are being trained to better understand and be sensitive to our enemies feelings and concerns rather than how to defeat and destroy them.
There are very few leaders today who could have made the wrenching decisions to bomb Dresden, Tokyo or Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those decisions were instrumental in ending World War II and saved millions of American lives. The deaths of civilians as collateral damage while horrible and unfortunate are an intimate and inextricable part of war. Historians will continue to debate the number of lives that would have been saved had the Atomic bomb been ready and used earlier. How many American fathers, husbands, son’s and brothers would have survived had the war been shortened?
Afghanistan is arguably one of the most desolate, insignificant 4th world countries on our planet. It is not Kazakhstan, a country flush with gas and oil, diamonds and gold. Other than Kabul, it is a nation divided by tribes and regions, controlled by warlords. The Western dreams of a centralized government for Afghanistan are just that, dreams. After 9/11 the U.S. conquered Afghanistan killing or capturing most of those responsible for the attack on America and driving out the Taliban. Then we abandoned her like a West African aids victim. If America did not learn from the repercussions of abandonment and is not diligent and committed once again in its efforts to destroy the Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, then all of those who have died in Afghanistan and continue to die will die in vain.
At no time in U.S. history has an American president ever half heartedly expanded a war only to advise his enemy that the expansion is temporary. Obama’s decision to provide 30,000 more troops to help defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the correct decision if we expect to prevent safe haven for the terrorists. However, telegraphing his intentions to withdraw our troops in 18 months is misguided and will prove deadly to our soldiers and marines as well as our intelligence experts. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a successful military campaign that did not depend upon reliable, actionable intelligence. I can tell you from personal experience that it is virtually impossible to devise a human intelligence network, humint, when assets are convinced that there is no future or reason for them to cooperate with you.
The message to the warlords in the tribal regions of Afghanistan should be simple and clear. We are leaving. There will be no more American bloodshed in Afghanistan. If you want our continued financial assistance or our friendship, then you must not allow safe harbor to the enemies of the United States. If you do, there will be devastating consequences. There will be Dresden. And we must deliver.
Wayne Simmons was recruited by the CIA in 1973 while in the U.S. Navy. He became part of an Outside Paramilitary Special Operations Group where for 27 years he worked against Narco terroris's, Arms Smugglers, Counterfeiters, Cyber-terrorist's and Industrial and Economic Espionage.
Keep fighting to do away with Abortion
December 10, 2009
Mexican Victories Underscore Global Pro-Life Trend
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Mexican pro-lifers were elated when the Vera Cruz amended its state constitution last month to protect life from the moment of conception, joining 16 other Mexican states. The vote set the stage for a possible amendment to the federal constitution: under Mexico's constitution, approval by a majority of the 32 state legislatures and two-thirds of the bicameral Congress is a prerequisite for any federal amendment.
Mexican abortion advocates who cheered last year's limited Supreme Court decision upholding a liberalized Mexico City law did not foresee such a popular reaction in favor of life. The court there had deferred to the legislature while declining to hold that abortion is a constitutional right.
Nor is Mexico's experience unique – it is consistent with a string of victories in favor of life this past year around the globe that has heartened defenders of the unborn. These victories undercut the argument that a liberalized "customary" global norm on abortion is evolving.
First and foremost was this summer's successful reform of the Dominican Republic's constitution, which now declares that "the right to life is inviolable from conception until death." The nation also tightened its penal law protection of unborn life.
East Timor's parliament likewise rejected a liberalized abortion law in June, passing instead a very tight law recognizing that life "from the moment of conception" is entitled to protection.
Honduras' legislature passed a law banning use of "emergency contraception," the high-hormone "morning after" pill, over concern that it may function as an abortifacient by preventing implantation.
The Constitutional Court of Peru similarly found due to the morning after pill's possible abortifacient effects, the drug could not be distributed in public health facilities. Both Peru's and Honduras' constitutions protect pre-natal life.
Concern over demographic collapse has spurred South Korea to stop turning a blind eye to violations of its abortion law. And at this year's United Nations Commission on Population and Development meeting, Japan and Russia issued strong pro-natalist statements, reflecting similar concerns.
Abortion advocates have long argued that abortion liberalization is an unstoppable global trend. An article last year by Reed Boland and Laura Katzive which made such a claim now looks in need of revision. Critics contend their case was overstated to begin with: while acknowledging that Nicaragua and El Salvador had passed laws banning abortion, the article downplayed evident countertrends to liberalization in countries such as Poland and the United States, where the Supreme Court upheld a partial-birth abortion ban.
Not wishing to overstate matters themselves, some Mexican pro-lifers, though buoyed by the state-level developments, caution that congressional support may not be sufficient for a federal amendment. They also note that the Supreme Court has yet to rule on a challenge to Baja California's state amendment.
Other Latin American commentators warn that Uruguayan voters recently replaced outgoing pro-life socialist President Tabaré Vázquez, who had defied his party by vetoing a bill liberalizing abortion, with another socialist who lacks Vazquez' principled commitment to life at all its stages.
On balance, however, the trend toward protection of life this past year has been marked.
Mexican Victories Underscore Global Pro-Life Trend
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Mexican pro-lifers were elated when the Vera Cruz amended its state constitution last month to protect life from the moment of conception, joining 16 other Mexican states. The vote set the stage for a possible amendment to the federal constitution: under Mexico's constitution, approval by a majority of the 32 state legislatures and two-thirds of the bicameral Congress is a prerequisite for any federal amendment.
Mexican abortion advocates who cheered last year's limited Supreme Court decision upholding a liberalized Mexico City law did not foresee such a popular reaction in favor of life. The court there had deferred to the legislature while declining to hold that abortion is a constitutional right.
Nor is Mexico's experience unique – it is consistent with a string of victories in favor of life this past year around the globe that has heartened defenders of the unborn. These victories undercut the argument that a liberalized "customary" global norm on abortion is evolving.
First and foremost was this summer's successful reform of the Dominican Republic's constitution, which now declares that "the right to life is inviolable from conception until death." The nation also tightened its penal law protection of unborn life.
East Timor's parliament likewise rejected a liberalized abortion law in June, passing instead a very tight law recognizing that life "from the moment of conception" is entitled to protection.
Honduras' legislature passed a law banning use of "emergency contraception," the high-hormone "morning after" pill, over concern that it may function as an abortifacient by preventing implantation.
The Constitutional Court of Peru similarly found due to the morning after pill's possible abortifacient effects, the drug could not be distributed in public health facilities. Both Peru's and Honduras' constitutions protect pre-natal life.
Concern over demographic collapse has spurred South Korea to stop turning a blind eye to violations of its abortion law. And at this year's United Nations Commission on Population and Development meeting, Japan and Russia issued strong pro-natalist statements, reflecting similar concerns.
Abortion advocates have long argued that abortion liberalization is an unstoppable global trend. An article last year by Reed Boland and Laura Katzive which made such a claim now looks in need of revision. Critics contend their case was overstated to begin with: while acknowledging that Nicaragua and El Salvador had passed laws banning abortion, the article downplayed evident countertrends to liberalization in countries such as Poland and the United States, where the Supreme Court upheld a partial-birth abortion ban.
Not wishing to overstate matters themselves, some Mexican pro-lifers, though buoyed by the state-level developments, caution that congressional support may not be sufficient for a federal amendment. They also note that the Supreme Court has yet to rule on a challenge to Baja California's state amendment.
Other Latin American commentators warn that Uruguayan voters recently replaced outgoing pro-life socialist President Tabaré Vázquez, who had defied his party by vetoing a bill liberalizing abortion, with another socialist who lacks Vazquez' principled commitment to life at all its stages.
On balance, however, the trend toward protection of life this past year has been marked.
Abortion myths and facts. Will the U.N. listen?
December 10, 2009
Permissive Abortion Laws May Be Hazardous To Mothers' Health, Per New Report
By Samantha Singson
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A new report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) shows that countries with restrictive abortion laws are often the leaders in reducing maternal mortality, and those with permissive laws often lag. According to the report, the pro-life nation of Ireland has topped the global rankings once again with the best maternal health performance.
Abortion advocates have attempted to push an international "right to abortion," claiming that restrictive laws force women to seek unsafe abortion, which in turn leads to high maternal mortality. In October, the Guttmacher Institute released a report on global abortion calling on states to "expand access to legal abortion and ensure that safe, legal abortion services are available to women in need." Sharon Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, asserted that "in much of the developing world, abortion remains highly restricted, and unsafe abortion is common and continues to damage women's health and threaten their survival."
An examination and comparison of several countries included in the WEF survey show that legal abortion does not mean lower maternal mortality rates.
Both Ireland and Poland, favorite targets of the abortion lobby for their strong restrictions on abortion, have better maternal mortality ratios than the United States. Ireland ranks first in the survey with 1 death for every 100,000 live births. In recent years Poland has tightened its abortion law and ranks number 27 on the list with 8 deaths per 100,000. In the United States where there are virtually no restrictions on abortion, the maternal mortality ratio is 17 out of 100,000 live births.
Other regions of the world show similar trends. The African nation with the lowest maternal mortality rate is Mauritius, a country with some of the continent's most protective laws for the unborn. On the other end of the spectrum is Ethiopia, which has decriminalized abortion in recent years in response to global abortion lobby pressure. Ethiopia's maternal death rate is 48 times higher than in Mauritius. South Africa has the continent's most liberal abortion laws and also a high maternal mortality ratio of 400 deaths per 100,000.
Chile, with constitutional protection for the unborn, outranks all other South American countries as the safest place for women to bear children. The country with the highest maternal mortality is Guyana, with a rate 30 times higher than in Chile. Guyana has allowed abortion without almost any restriction since in 1995. Ironically, one of two main justifications used for liberalizing Guyana’s law was to enhance the "attainment of safe motherhood" by eliminating deaths and complications associated with unsafe abortion.
Similarly in Asia, Nepal, where there is no restriction on the procedure, has one of the world's highest maternal mortality rates. The lowest in the region is Sri Lanka, with a rate fourteen times lower than that of Nepal. According to the pro-abortion public interest law firm Center for Reproductive Rights, Sri Lanka has among the most restrictive abortion laws in the world.
Pro-lifers emphasize that the WEF report reinforces their contention that skilled birth attendants and access to emergency obstetric care should be the focus of maternal mortality reduction efforts, rather than increasing access to legal abortion.
Permissive Abortion Laws May Be Hazardous To Mothers' Health, Per New Report
By Samantha Singson
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) A new report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) shows that countries with restrictive abortion laws are often the leaders in reducing maternal mortality, and those with permissive laws often lag. According to the report, the pro-life nation of Ireland has topped the global rankings once again with the best maternal health performance.
Abortion advocates have attempted to push an international "right to abortion," claiming that restrictive laws force women to seek unsafe abortion, which in turn leads to high maternal mortality. In October, the Guttmacher Institute released a report on global abortion calling on states to "expand access to legal abortion and ensure that safe, legal abortion services are available to women in need." Sharon Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, asserted that "in much of the developing world, abortion remains highly restricted, and unsafe abortion is common and continues to damage women's health and threaten their survival."
An examination and comparison of several countries included in the WEF survey show that legal abortion does not mean lower maternal mortality rates.
Both Ireland and Poland, favorite targets of the abortion lobby for their strong restrictions on abortion, have better maternal mortality ratios than the United States. Ireland ranks first in the survey with 1 death for every 100,000 live births. In recent years Poland has tightened its abortion law and ranks number 27 on the list with 8 deaths per 100,000. In the United States where there are virtually no restrictions on abortion, the maternal mortality ratio is 17 out of 100,000 live births.
Other regions of the world show similar trends. The African nation with the lowest maternal mortality rate is Mauritius, a country with some of the continent's most protective laws for the unborn. On the other end of the spectrum is Ethiopia, which has decriminalized abortion in recent years in response to global abortion lobby pressure. Ethiopia's maternal death rate is 48 times higher than in Mauritius. South Africa has the continent's most liberal abortion laws and also a high maternal mortality ratio of 400 deaths per 100,000.
Chile, with constitutional protection for the unborn, outranks all other South American countries as the safest place for women to bear children. The country with the highest maternal mortality is Guyana, with a rate 30 times higher than in Chile. Guyana has allowed abortion without almost any restriction since in 1995. Ironically, one of two main justifications used for liberalizing Guyana’s law was to enhance the "attainment of safe motherhood" by eliminating deaths and complications associated with unsafe abortion.
Similarly in Asia, Nepal, where there is no restriction on the procedure, has one of the world's highest maternal mortality rates. The lowest in the region is Sri Lanka, with a rate fourteen times lower than that of Nepal. According to the pro-abortion public interest law firm Center for Reproductive Rights, Sri Lanka has among the most restrictive abortion laws in the world.
Pro-lifers emphasize that the WEF report reinforces their contention that skilled birth attendants and access to emergency obstetric care should be the focus of maternal mortality reduction efforts, rather than increasing access to legal abortion.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A Socialist Lesbian working for USCCB?
I have no use whatsoever for the USCCB.
In it's entirety, and emphasis mine;
Connection between USCCB and gay rights activist sparks controversy
Washington D.C., Dec 4, 2009 / 10:43 pm (CNA).- Conservative blogs were buzzing on Friday with the discovery that a member of the USCCB's Subcommittee on Catholic Health Care is an active homosexual and gay rights activist. However, though Mary Kay Henry's bio states that she is a labor adviser to the U.S. bishops, the USCCB communications director told CNA “she is not a consultant.”
Henry, the international executive vice president for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was recently named one of the nation's "Top 25 Women in Healthcare" for 2009 by Modern Healthcare. Her biography at the SEIU website explains that “Her faith and values as a practicing Roman Catholic led her to pursue union organizing as a vocation.”
“Mary Kay is also active in the fight for immigration reform and gay and lesbian rights. She is a founding member of SEIU's gay and lesbian Lavender Caucus,” her description continues.
According to SEIU, “The Lavender Caucus is the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/ Transgender (L/G/B/T) Caucus of the Service Employees International Union whose purpose is to facilitate open and respectful communication between the L/G/B/T community and the labor movement.”
The last line of Henry's SEIU bio reads, “She and her partner, Paula Macchello, have been together for 20 years.”
Henry is listed on the USCCB website as a member of the Subcommittee on Justice, Peace, and Human Development who helped produce the working paper, “A Fair and Just Workplace: Principles and Practices for Catholic Health Care.”
ModernHealthCare.com also mentions that Henry is a labor adviser to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Catholic Health Care & Work Subcommittee.
However, in an email asking to confirm Henry’s advisory role at the USCCB, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, the conference media director simply told CNA, “She is not a consultant.”
CNA spoke with another woman in the Justice, Peace and Human Development office at the USCCB who said a press release on the topic would be available on Friday afternoon.
But by Friday night, no press release had been posted on the USCCB’s website.
Similarly, a call from CNA to Henry was not returned.
Soooo.... the USCCB has knowingly and willingly hired someone who is not only morally disordered, this chick also regularly engages in intrinsically evil and perverted sexual acts.
And she's a Socialist.
Oh, and she's also saddled-up with the SEIU ObaThugs.
Why am I not surprised?
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
In it's entirety, and emphasis mine;
Connection between USCCB and gay rights activist sparks controversy
Washington D.C., Dec 4, 2009 / 10:43 pm (CNA).- Conservative blogs were buzzing on Friday with the discovery that a member of the USCCB's Subcommittee on Catholic Health Care is an active homosexual and gay rights activist. However, though Mary Kay Henry's bio states that she is a labor adviser to the U.S. bishops, the USCCB communications director told CNA “she is not a consultant.”
Henry, the international executive vice president for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was recently named one of the nation's "Top 25 Women in Healthcare" for 2009 by Modern Healthcare. Her biography at the SEIU website explains that “Her faith and values as a practicing Roman Catholic led her to pursue union organizing as a vocation.”
“Mary Kay is also active in the fight for immigration reform and gay and lesbian rights. She is a founding member of SEIU's gay and lesbian Lavender Caucus,” her description continues.
According to SEIU, “The Lavender Caucus is the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/ Transgender (L/G/B/T) Caucus of the Service Employees International Union whose purpose is to facilitate open and respectful communication between the L/G/B/T community and the labor movement.”
The last line of Henry's SEIU bio reads, “She and her partner, Paula Macchello, have been together for 20 years.”
Henry is listed on the USCCB website as a member of the Subcommittee on Justice, Peace, and Human Development who helped produce the working paper, “A Fair and Just Workplace: Principles and Practices for Catholic Health Care.”
ModernHealthCare.com also mentions that Henry is a labor adviser to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Catholic Health Care & Work Subcommittee.
However, in an email asking to confirm Henry’s advisory role at the USCCB, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, the conference media director simply told CNA, “She is not a consultant.”
CNA spoke with another woman in the Justice, Peace and Human Development office at the USCCB who said a press release on the topic would be available on Friday afternoon.
But by Friday night, no press release had been posted on the USCCB’s website.
Similarly, a call from CNA to Henry was not returned.
Soooo.... the USCCB has knowingly and willingly hired someone who is not only morally disordered, this chick also regularly engages in intrinsically evil and perverted sexual acts.
And she's a Socialist.
Oh, and she's also saddled-up with the SEIU ObaThugs.
Why am I not surprised?
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
A Jesuit making sense, all is not lost.
Hope For The Jesuits After All
In it's entirety from LifeSiteNews.com
A solid, common sense retort to the condescending and sneering theological milquetoasts better known as Progressive Catholics (read: Catholics for Obama) and their ilk that over-populate more than a few parishes, rectories and chanceries.
Commentary: On Being an 'Ultra-Catholic'
In the contemporary world, the real enemy of the liberal culture is the "fanatic." He holds something.
By Rev. James V. Schall, SJ
Note: Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., teaches political science at Georgetown University. His latest book, The Mind That Is Catholic, is published by Catholic University of America Press.
December 7, 2009 (InsideCatholic.com) - A friend wrote me about a school principal, a religious sister, speaking to a parent and requesting school funds. The gentleman was described as an "ultra-Catholic." My friend asked me: "What is that, do you know?" Evidently, the "non-ultra" principal thought it all right to siphon needed cash from the "ultra" parent. No strings were attached. Once the funds were donated, the non-ultra establishment would go its non-ultra way. The ultra was good for his cash, if he still had any. His ideas were, well, ultra.
Clearly, I cannot resist taking a stab at defining what a modern ultra-Catholic is. Some temptations are difficult to resist. Briefly, in today's multi-descriptor world, an ultra-Catholic is one who is a believing Catholic, a fairly rare bird. The country is full of ex-, disagreeing, non-practicing, right-to-choose, leave-me-alone Catholics. They tell us that they are better than their hapless co-religionists who naively think Catholicism is credibly the most intelligent thing on the public or private scene. In the public area, the most often cited "authority" on what Catholics believe is the dissenter. Catholics are the one group about which no one has to speak accurately.
A be-knighted ultra-Catholic holds the Nicene Creed as true. He thinks divine authority exists in the Church. He knows that he, a sinner, needs forgiveness. But he does not make his sins into some social-justice crusade. He does odd things like go to Mass on Sundays, even in Latin. He thinks it is fine to have children. He prefers to work for a living. He also knows that the Church is under siege in the culture. He belongs to the real minority.
The word "ultra" is Latin, meaning "beyond." We have things like ultra viruses, ultrasounds, and ultraviolet rays. In the Middle Ages, a pope was called "ultramontane" if he came not from Italy but from over the mountains. In France in the modern era, the ultramontanists were those Catholics who kept alliance with Rome. Jesuits, perish the thought, were said to belong to this alien group in the Gallican regime. Ultramontanists did not think the French government was divine. This latter view was considered to be rather extreme. I know this negative view of French glory is difficult for the average contemporary to grasp. We find divine authority neither in Rome nor in Paris but only in ourselves.
An ultra-Catholic today, however, is one who strives to do what Aquinas did: He distinguished between those who willingly practice virtue, because they understand that it is the noble thing to do, and those who practice it just to observe the minimum of the law.
In what is hopefully a pioneer endeavor, we even have a bishop explaining to a Kennedy what it means to be a Catholic. Bishop Thomas Tobin in Providence read what Congressman Kennedy said in the Congressional Record about his being a Catholic but still not "agreeing" with everything the Church held -- a highly unoriginal position, to be sure.
The bishop wondered just what it was that the congressman did not hold, and whether these "un-held" things were central positions in the Church -- which, of course, they were. From the beginning, when this selective view of Catholicism first appeared, local bishops did not similarly inquire of politicians who invoked this fuzzy doctrine of themselves deciding what is Catholic, as if the politician were actually himself the pope.
Now about this ultra-Catholic character: We have all laughed at people said to be "holier than the Church." This latter remark is not a compliment. Unlike the congressman from Rhode Island, some Catholics add things instead of subtracting them, as is the current fashion. Usually, the additions are not really wrong or bad. Most devotions, like the scapulars, are additions in this sense. Aquinas said that adding to the law was not the problem; taking things away from it was.
In the contemporary world, the real enemy of the liberal culture is the "fanatic." He holds something. We have now reached the point where the fanatic is pretty much identified with the ultra-Catholic. What is dangerous is not some heretical notion of Christianity; it is Christianity itself, especially in its Catholic form. When many Catholics themselves do not know what they are and hold, we distinguish the Christian who defines his own beliefs from the one who holds the self-evident and revealed truths of the Faith.
When the non-ultra-Catholics identify themselves with a disordered culture, the ultra-Catholic is left standing by himself. The popes address their documents to "men of good will." We read in the Gospel of John: "I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them." Evidently, not all men have good will.
(Reprinted with permission from http://www.insidecatholic.com/)
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
In it's entirety from LifeSiteNews.com
A solid, common sense retort to the condescending and sneering theological milquetoasts better known as Progressive Catholics (read: Catholics for Obama) and their ilk that over-populate more than a few parishes, rectories and chanceries.
Commentary: On Being an 'Ultra-Catholic'
In the contemporary world, the real enemy of the liberal culture is the "fanatic." He holds something.
By Rev. James V. Schall, SJ
Note: Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., teaches political science at Georgetown University. His latest book, The Mind That Is Catholic, is published by Catholic University of America Press.
December 7, 2009 (InsideCatholic.com) - A friend wrote me about a school principal, a religious sister, speaking to a parent and requesting school funds. The gentleman was described as an "ultra-Catholic." My friend asked me: "What is that, do you know?" Evidently, the "non-ultra" principal thought it all right to siphon needed cash from the "ultra" parent. No strings were attached. Once the funds were donated, the non-ultra establishment would go its non-ultra way. The ultra was good for his cash, if he still had any. His ideas were, well, ultra.
Clearly, I cannot resist taking a stab at defining what a modern ultra-Catholic is. Some temptations are difficult to resist. Briefly, in today's multi-descriptor world, an ultra-Catholic is one who is a believing Catholic, a fairly rare bird. The country is full of ex-, disagreeing, non-practicing, right-to-choose, leave-me-alone Catholics. They tell us that they are better than their hapless co-religionists who naively think Catholicism is credibly the most intelligent thing on the public or private scene. In the public area, the most often cited "authority" on what Catholics believe is the dissenter. Catholics are the one group about which no one has to speak accurately.
A be-knighted ultra-Catholic holds the Nicene Creed as true. He thinks divine authority exists in the Church. He knows that he, a sinner, needs forgiveness. But he does not make his sins into some social-justice crusade. He does odd things like go to Mass on Sundays, even in Latin. He thinks it is fine to have children. He prefers to work for a living. He also knows that the Church is under siege in the culture. He belongs to the real minority.
The word "ultra" is Latin, meaning "beyond." We have things like ultra viruses, ultrasounds, and ultraviolet rays. In the Middle Ages, a pope was called "ultramontane" if he came not from Italy but from over the mountains. In France in the modern era, the ultramontanists were those Catholics who kept alliance with Rome. Jesuits, perish the thought, were said to belong to this alien group in the Gallican regime. Ultramontanists did not think the French government was divine. This latter view was considered to be rather extreme. I know this negative view of French glory is difficult for the average contemporary to grasp. We find divine authority neither in Rome nor in Paris but only in ourselves.
An ultra-Catholic today, however, is one who strives to do what Aquinas did: He distinguished between those who willingly practice virtue, because they understand that it is the noble thing to do, and those who practice it just to observe the minimum of the law.
In what is hopefully a pioneer endeavor, we even have a bishop explaining to a Kennedy what it means to be a Catholic. Bishop Thomas Tobin in Providence read what Congressman Kennedy said in the Congressional Record about his being a Catholic but still not "agreeing" with everything the Church held -- a highly unoriginal position, to be sure.
The bishop wondered just what it was that the congressman did not hold, and whether these "un-held" things were central positions in the Church -- which, of course, they were. From the beginning, when this selective view of Catholicism first appeared, local bishops did not similarly inquire of politicians who invoked this fuzzy doctrine of themselves deciding what is Catholic, as if the politician were actually himself the pope.
Now about this ultra-Catholic character: We have all laughed at people said to be "holier than the Church." This latter remark is not a compliment. Unlike the congressman from Rhode Island, some Catholics add things instead of subtracting them, as is the current fashion. Usually, the additions are not really wrong or bad. Most devotions, like the scapulars, are additions in this sense. Aquinas said that adding to the law was not the problem; taking things away from it was.
In the contemporary world, the real enemy of the liberal culture is the "fanatic." He holds something. We have now reached the point where the fanatic is pretty much identified with the ultra-Catholic. What is dangerous is not some heretical notion of Christianity; it is Christianity itself, especially in its Catholic form. When many Catholics themselves do not know what they are and hold, we distinguish the Christian who defines his own beliefs from the one who holds the self-evident and revealed truths of the Faith.
When the non-ultra-Catholics identify themselves with a disordered culture, the ultra-Catholic is left standing by himself. The popes address their documents to "men of good will." We read in the Gospel of John: "I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them." Evidently, not all men have good will.
(Reprinted with permission from http://www.insidecatholic.com/)
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus
This is what is known as Catholicly correct, Muslim style!
December 7, 2009
OBAMAS WOULD LIKE TO NEUTER CHRISTMAS
In yesterday’s New York Times, there was an article about White House social secretary Desirée Rogers. In it, reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote:“When former social secretaries gave a luncheon to welcome Ms. Rogers earlier this year, one participant said, she surprised them by suggesting the Obamas were planning a ‘non-religious Christmas….’” This same participant said that “the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display”(this was confirmed by the White House). Indeed, as Stolberg wrote,“there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.” Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today: Unlike almost all Americans—including atheists—the Obamas do not give their children Christmas gifts. We know this because Barack bragged about this last year to People magazine. So it should come as no big surprise that he and his wife would like to neuter Christmas in the White House. That’s their natural step—to ban the public display of Christian symbols. Have any doubts? Last April, Georgetown University was ordered to put a drape over the name of Jesus as a condition of the president speaking there. If the Obamas want to deprive their children of celebrating Christmas, that is their business. It is the business of the public to hold them accountable for the way they celebrate Christmas in the White House. We know one thing for sure: no other administration ever entertained internal discussions on whether to display a nativity scene in the White House.
OBAMAS WOULD LIKE TO NEUTER CHRISTMAS
In yesterday’s New York Times, there was an article about White House social secretary Desirée Rogers. In it, reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote:“When former social secretaries gave a luncheon to welcome Ms. Rogers earlier this year, one participant said, she surprised them by suggesting the Obamas were planning a ‘non-religious Christmas….’” This same participant said that “the Obamas did not intend to put the manger scene on display”(this was confirmed by the White House). Indeed, as Stolberg wrote,“there had been internal discussions about making Christmas more inclusive and whether to display the crèche.” Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this issue today: Unlike almost all Americans—including atheists—the Obamas do not give their children Christmas gifts. We know this because Barack bragged about this last year to People magazine. So it should come as no big surprise that he and his wife would like to neuter Christmas in the White House. That’s their natural step—to ban the public display of Christian symbols. Have any doubts? Last April, Georgetown University was ordered to put a drape over the name of Jesus as a condition of the president speaking there. If the Obamas want to deprive their children of celebrating Christmas, that is their business. It is the business of the public to hold them accountable for the way they celebrate Christmas in the White House. We know one thing for sure: no other administration ever entertained internal discussions on whether to display a nativity scene in the White House.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Medicare/Medigap plan changes?
THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO TO SENIORS WITH THE MEDICARE/MEDI-GAP PLANS,
ANYONE ON MEDICARE STILL WANT THE CHANGES OBAMA PROMISED?: CALL YOUR PROVIDER TO ASCERTAIN IF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
By David B Miller
Healthcare costs that are not covered by standard Medicare plans are not left uncovered with Medigap, also known as Medicare Supplement plans. Seniors, you are eligible for Medicare coverage if you are at least 65 years of age and/or have a qualifying disability. As the policies currently stand, there are 12 Supplement plans assigned the letters A through L. Each plan is important to consider for certain benefits relevant to your current situation, geographic location and health conditions. A basic change is occurring to all current plans with an addition of hospice care. Plan G will be undergoing a further alteration, that of a boost from 80 percent to 100 percent coverage for excess charges.
The plans that are being done away with altogether come June 2010 are Plans E, H, I and J. In addition, all Medicare Supplement plans will be stripped of their preventative care and at-home-recovery benefits. All seniors, no matter your current plan, are advised to review your plan in order to better make an informed decision about whether to keep your plan or switch to one of the new ones to be introduced. If your plan is being eliminated, you really have no other option than to review and compare the new rules of different coverage options.
Remember that while these changes may be frustrating and present a hassle right now, its purpose is to present you with better coverage at a lower cost. There will be further changes than those mentioned here, in the form of rates for deductibles, co-pays and benefits you receive from different Medicare Supplement plans. Since there will naturally be an increase in expenses for insurance companies offering healthcare, many will be discontinuing certain Medicare and Medigap options in an effort to offset these costs. Talk with your plan provider to review your options and become informed about any changes you may not have been aware of.
Dave Miller recommends visiting this updated informative site about Medicare Supplement Plans. Visit this unique site at http://www.Over65Insure.com
P.S. I just called AARP, the Customer Service officer named David stated, that if your already have those plans and wish to keep them, you will not be forced to make a change, but the changes like the preventative care(like flu shots) and higher deductibles does not sound good.And this is before any of the healthcare bills they are planning on are put into force. The first to suffer will be the seniors!
Call your Senators(even if they won't listen), they keep count of the amount of calls they receive, and let them know if they hurt the Seniors, we won't forget comes election day!
ANYONE ON MEDICARE STILL WANT THE CHANGES OBAMA PROMISED?: CALL YOUR PROVIDER TO ASCERTAIN IF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
By David B Miller
Healthcare costs that are not covered by standard Medicare plans are not left uncovered with Medigap, also known as Medicare Supplement plans. Seniors, you are eligible for Medicare coverage if you are at least 65 years of age and/or have a qualifying disability. As the policies currently stand, there are 12 Supplement plans assigned the letters A through L. Each plan is important to consider for certain benefits relevant to your current situation, geographic location and health conditions. A basic change is occurring to all current plans with an addition of hospice care. Plan G will be undergoing a further alteration, that of a boost from 80 percent to 100 percent coverage for excess charges.
The plans that are being done away with altogether come June 2010 are Plans E, H, I and J. In addition, all Medicare Supplement plans will be stripped of their preventative care and at-home-recovery benefits. All seniors, no matter your current plan, are advised to review your plan in order to better make an informed decision about whether to keep your plan or switch to one of the new ones to be introduced. If your plan is being eliminated, you really have no other option than to review and compare the new rules of different coverage options.
Remember that while these changes may be frustrating and present a hassle right now, its purpose is to present you with better coverage at a lower cost. There will be further changes than those mentioned here, in the form of rates for deductibles, co-pays and benefits you receive from different Medicare Supplement plans. Since there will naturally be an increase in expenses for insurance companies offering healthcare, many will be discontinuing certain Medicare and Medigap options in an effort to offset these costs. Talk with your plan provider to review your options and become informed about any changes you may not have been aware of.
Dave Miller recommends visiting this updated informative site about Medicare Supplement Plans. Visit this unique site at http://www.Over65Insure.com
P.S. I just called AARP, the Customer Service officer named David stated, that if your already have those plans and wish to keep them, you will not be forced to make a change, but the changes like the preventative care(like flu shots) and higher deductibles does not sound good.And this is before any of the healthcare bills they are planning on are put into force. The first to suffer will be the seniors!
Call your Senators(even if they won't listen), they keep count of the amount of calls they receive, and let them know if they hurt the Seniors, we won't forget comes election day!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
OUR GOVERNMENT WANTS TO SAVE MONEY AND JOBS, WHAT ABOUT NOT SPENDING THIS MONEY?
December 3, 2009
UNFPA Pushing for Hundreds of Billions for Family Planning As ICPD Era Draws to a Close
By Samantha Singson
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) At the United Nations this week, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) organized a commemorative seminar on the 1995 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and, in a look ahead, urged states to renew their commitment to the program, calling for over $200 billion (US) in funding for "sexual and reproductive health and family planning" alone.
UNFPA's Ann Pawliczko gave a financial perspective of the ICPD Program of Action and presented a "revised ICPD Global Cost Estimate" for 2009 through 2015, when the ICPD program is scheduled to end. Apart from $212 billion (US) for "sexual and reproductive health / family planning," UNFPA estimates that another $22.5 billion would be needed for "family planning direct costs" for the same time period.
At the seminar, attended by less than 80 individuals representing government delegations and civil society, panelists presented a retrospective of the "groundbreaking" ICPD conference and sought to outline a way forward. Claiming that with only five years left to fulfill the commitments made at the ICPD and achieve the interrelated Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), "governments are called upon to redouble their efforts toward the integration of population and development policies."
Opening the seminar, Dr. Werner Haug, UNFPA's Technical Division director, acknowledged that population has always been a "thorny and difficult" topic and that countries must now decide how to proceed after the Cairo Program of Action expires at the end of 2014.
Dr. Stan Bernstein, a UNFPA senior policy advisor, called the Cairo consensus "novel" for its person-centered approach rather than just on numbers and demographics and praised the Cairo's reframing of population programs to a "customized approach" which seeks to provide couples and individuals with the means to achieve a smaller family size.
Hania Zlotnik of the UN Population Division emphasized the alleged benefits of population reduction, touting that declining fertility "has potentially positive effects on economic growth" such as a reduced number of dependents, an increased number of workers, particularly more women workers since they are having less children. Zlotnik lamented that funding for family planning was on the decline and warned that "the reproductive health of women and couples cannot be assured if women don't have the means to control their fertility."
Laura Laski, yet another UNFPA representative, focused solely on "reproductive rights and universal access to sexual and reproductive health." Laski lauded the progress made since the Cairo conference and highlighted the linkage to the MDGs. Laski pointed to the controversial MDG target on "universal access to reproductive health by 2015" as the new "center point" for future work on "sexual and reproductive health." (Critics note that states rejected a separate goal on "reproductive health" in 2001, only to see it reappear as a "target" in the annex of a Secretary-General's report in 2007.)
Panelists concluded that the "chief constraint" to realizing the Cairo program of action is the "lack of adequate funding" and urged states to increase their political will, renew their Cairo commitment and "increase allocations for population activities" as a matter of priority.
The UNFPA seminar was co-organized by UNITAR, the UN Institute for Training and Research, as part of the UN's celebration of the ICPD 15th anniversary.
(How about putting this on the ballot and finding out what the American people feel about spending tyhis money?)
UNFPA Pushing for Hundreds of Billions for Family Planning As ICPD Era Draws to a Close
By Samantha Singson
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) At the United Nations this week, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) organized a commemorative seminar on the 1995 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and, in a look ahead, urged states to renew their commitment to the program, calling for over $200 billion (US) in funding for "sexual and reproductive health and family planning" alone.
UNFPA's Ann Pawliczko gave a financial perspective of the ICPD Program of Action and presented a "revised ICPD Global Cost Estimate" for 2009 through 2015, when the ICPD program is scheduled to end. Apart from $212 billion (US) for "sexual and reproductive health / family planning," UNFPA estimates that another $22.5 billion would be needed for "family planning direct costs" for the same time period.
At the seminar, attended by less than 80 individuals representing government delegations and civil society, panelists presented a retrospective of the "groundbreaking" ICPD conference and sought to outline a way forward. Claiming that with only five years left to fulfill the commitments made at the ICPD and achieve the interrelated Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), "governments are called upon to redouble their efforts toward the integration of population and development policies."
Opening the seminar, Dr. Werner Haug, UNFPA's Technical Division director, acknowledged that population has always been a "thorny and difficult" topic and that countries must now decide how to proceed after the Cairo Program of Action expires at the end of 2014.
Dr. Stan Bernstein, a UNFPA senior policy advisor, called the Cairo consensus "novel" for its person-centered approach rather than just on numbers and demographics and praised the Cairo's reframing of population programs to a "customized approach" which seeks to provide couples and individuals with the means to achieve a smaller family size.
Hania Zlotnik of the UN Population Division emphasized the alleged benefits of population reduction, touting that declining fertility "has potentially positive effects on economic growth" such as a reduced number of dependents, an increased number of workers, particularly more women workers since they are having less children. Zlotnik lamented that funding for family planning was on the decline and warned that "the reproductive health of women and couples cannot be assured if women don't have the means to control their fertility."
Laura Laski, yet another UNFPA representative, focused solely on "reproductive rights and universal access to sexual and reproductive health." Laski lauded the progress made since the Cairo conference and highlighted the linkage to the MDGs. Laski pointed to the controversial MDG target on "universal access to reproductive health by 2015" as the new "center point" for future work on "sexual and reproductive health." (Critics note that states rejected a separate goal on "reproductive health" in 2001, only to see it reappear as a "target" in the annex of a Secretary-General's report in 2007.)
Panelists concluded that the "chief constraint" to realizing the Cairo program of action is the "lack of adequate funding" and urged states to increase their political will, renew their Cairo commitment and "increase allocations for population activities" as a matter of priority.
The UNFPA seminar was co-organized by UNITAR, the UN Institute for Training and Research, as part of the UN's celebration of the ICPD 15th anniversary.
(How about putting this on the ballot and finding out what the American people feel about spending tyhis money?)
As I had predicted, the UN WANTS TO RULE THE WORLD, IRREGARDLESS OF YOUR NATIONS CONSTITUTION.
December 3, 2009
European Court of Human Rights Puts Pro-life Ireland in Hot Seat
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Irish abortion laws and sovereignty stand in the dock next week when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears a challenge to Ireland's constitutional protection of life "from conception."
Three petitioners in the case A, B & C v. Ireland allege that they were forced to travel overseas to obtain abortions, undergoing unnecessary expenses and hardship due to the nation's pro-life laws. They claim violations of various rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Third-party interveners Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the European Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defense Fund (on behalf of Family Research Council), contend that it is "Ireland's sovereign right to determine when life begins" and what rights attach to pre-natal life. They also claim that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and that therefore the ECHR lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Ireland's constitution "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." The country's recent approval of the Lisbon Treaty after receiving guarantees that its pro-life constitution would remain unaffected has raised the stakes of the Court's decision.
Skeptics of the ECHR's ability to be impartial where "abortion rights" are implicated point to the court's 2007 ruling Tysiąc v. Poland, which held that Poland had violated the European Convention by denying a woman a "therapeutic" abortion that allegedly would have saved her eyesight. The woman there had obtained a certificate from a general practitioner as a prerequisite to obtaining an abortion allowable under Polish law, which remains among Europe's most protective of the unborn. Five medical experts overruled the general practitioner, determining that the ongoing deterioration in eyesight was unrelated to her pregnancy – a finding seconded post-delivery by a review panel of three additional experts. Despite this, as the dissent pointed out, the ECHR credited the one generalist's opinion over that of eight experts to reach the desired result.
Jakob Cornides, a European legal commentator who has criticized the Tysiąc decision, distinguished that case from the present one, noting that, "rightly or wrongly, Tysiąc was premised upon the notion that Ms. Tysiąc's contemplated abortion would have been legal under Polish law, and if lawful, it should have been available. In Ireland, however, the constitution protects unborn life and legislation indisputably prohibits abortion."
Cornides further points out that "the Court so far has avoided taking a position on whether abortion should be legal or not, leaving this question to national legislators. It would indeed be inconceivable that countries like Ireland or Poland, to name just two, would have signed up to the Convention if they foresaw an explicit or implicit 'right to abortion.'"
Irish voters overwhelmingly approved Ireland's pro-life constitutional provision in a 1983 referendum. Pro-lifers further note that Ireland has the world's lowest rate of maternal mortality in childbirth, as confirmed in a recent report by the World Economic Forum
European Court of Human Rights Puts Pro-life Ireland in Hot Seat
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Irish abortion laws and sovereignty stand in the dock next week when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears a challenge to Ireland's constitutional protection of life "from conception."
Three petitioners in the case A, B & C v. Ireland allege that they were forced to travel overseas to obtain abortions, undergoing unnecessary expenses and hardship due to the nation's pro-life laws. They claim violations of various rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Third-party interveners Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the European Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defense Fund (on behalf of Family Research Council), contend that it is "Ireland's sovereign right to determine when life begins" and what rights attach to pre-natal life. They also claim that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and that therefore the ECHR lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Ireland's constitution "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." The country's recent approval of the Lisbon Treaty after receiving guarantees that its pro-life constitution would remain unaffected has raised the stakes of the Court's decision.
Skeptics of the ECHR's ability to be impartial where "abortion rights" are implicated point to the court's 2007 ruling Tysiąc v. Poland, which held that Poland had violated the European Convention by denying a woman a "therapeutic" abortion that allegedly would have saved her eyesight. The woman there had obtained a certificate from a general practitioner as a prerequisite to obtaining an abortion allowable under Polish law, which remains among Europe's most protective of the unborn. Five medical experts overruled the general practitioner, determining that the ongoing deterioration in eyesight was unrelated to her pregnancy – a finding seconded post-delivery by a review panel of three additional experts. Despite this, as the dissent pointed out, the ECHR credited the one generalist's opinion over that of eight experts to reach the desired result.
Jakob Cornides, a European legal commentator who has criticized the Tysiąc decision, distinguished that case from the present one, noting that, "rightly or wrongly, Tysiąc was premised upon the notion that Ms. Tysiąc's contemplated abortion would have been legal under Polish law, and if lawful, it should have been available. In Ireland, however, the constitution protects unborn life and legislation indisputably prohibits abortion."
Cornides further points out that "the Court so far has avoided taking a position on whether abortion should be legal or not, leaving this question to national legislators. It would indeed be inconceivable that countries like Ireland or Poland, to name just two, would have signed up to the Convention if they foresaw an explicit or implicit 'right to abortion.'"
Irish voters overwhelmingly approved Ireland's pro-life constitutional provision in a 1983 referendum. Pro-lifers further note that Ireland has the world's lowest rate of maternal mortality in childbirth, as confirmed in a recent report by the World Economic Forum
The great American Congress at work?
Boxer wants climate e-mail hacking probed
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 (UPI)-- The leaking of e-mails purporting to undermine climate change theories should be criminally investigated, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Wednesday.
The e-mails, written by British scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained by hackers and show the director of the university's Climate Research Unit talking about ways to strengthen the proofs for global warming, The Hill newspaper reported.
Critics of climate change point to the e-mails as evidence of deceit in global warming theories.
"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said during a committee meeting. "The main issue is,'Are we facing global warming or are we not?' I'm looking at these e-mails, that even though they were stolen, are now out in the public."(what about the email stolen from Sarah Palin? Not one word about that, and since when is it the job of the Congress to investigate a crime that had happened outside of the United States?)
The committee's top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe, has asked that the e-mails be the subject of a committee hearing. The Hill reported Boxer may grant his request, but said that criminal investigations would be part of any hearings.
WHAT? Are we going to investigate every crime that happens outside of the USA? ARE YOU FRIGHTENED
THAT AL GORE WILL BE FOUND OUT TO BE ANOTHER Mahoff? He is an American Citizen(though you would never know that from his actions), investigate him,find out how much money(besides the Nobel Prize money) he has postured himself to make over the whole world on a "Climate Frenzy", and he is the one who lit the match! Oh I forgot he is a Democrat, not a Republican. Great Visibility Mr
President!
JMHO
WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 (UPI)-- The leaking of e-mails purporting to undermine climate change theories should be criminally investigated, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Wednesday.
The e-mails, written by British scientists at the University of East Anglia, were obtained by hackers and show the director of the university's Climate Research Unit talking about ways to strengthen the proofs for global warming, The Hill newspaper reported.
Critics of climate change point to the e-mails as evidence of deceit in global warming theories.
"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" Boxer, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said during a committee meeting. "The main issue is,'Are we facing global warming or are we not?' I'm looking at these e-mails, that even though they were stolen, are now out in the public."(what about the email stolen from Sarah Palin? Not one word about that, and since when is it the job of the Congress to investigate a crime that had happened outside of the United States?)
The committee's top Republican, Sen. James Inhofe, has asked that the e-mails be the subject of a committee hearing. The Hill reported Boxer may grant his request, but said that criminal investigations would be part of any hearings.
WHAT? Are we going to investigate every crime that happens outside of the USA? ARE YOU FRIGHTENED
THAT AL GORE WILL BE FOUND OUT TO BE ANOTHER Mahoff? He is an American Citizen(though you would never know that from his actions), investigate him,find out how much money(besides the Nobel Prize money) he has postured himself to make over the whole world on a "Climate Frenzy", and he is the one who lit the match! Oh I forgot he is a Democrat, not a Republican. Great Visibility Mr
President!
JMHO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)