Sunday, February 28, 2010

Just as relevant today as the Day he said it.


To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops
and other Local Ordinaries in Peace
and Communion with the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse things" (Acts xx. 30), "vain talkers and seducers" (Tit. i. 10), "erring and driving into error" (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.

Gravity of the Situation

2. That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.

3. Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality. Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better sense, and to this end we first of all showed them kindness as Our children, then we treated them with severity, and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. But you know, Venerable Brethren, how fruitless has been Our action. They bowed their head for a moment, but it was soon uplifted more arrogantly than ever. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it: but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore, as to maintain it longer would be a crime, We must now break silence, in order to expose before the whole Church in their true colours those men who have assumed this bad disguise.

Division of the Encyclical

4. But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Obama belongs to "The league of false religion"

February 26, 2010
Several officials from the Obama administration are scheduled to meet today with representatives of the Secular Coalition for America. Commenting on this meeting is Catholic League president Bill Donohue: People of faith, especially Christians, have good reason to wonder exactly where their interests lie with the Obama administration. Now we have the definitive answer. In an unprecedented move, leaders of a presidential administration are hosting some of the biggest anti-religious zealots in the nation. No one opposes men and women who are incidentally agnostic or atheist from expressing their concerns, even to the White House. The problem with today’s meeting is the profile of the coalition’s members and organizations. On the advisory board of the Secular Coalition for America are such activists as Robert Boston, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Susan Jacoby and Michael Newdow. Member organizations include American Atheists, the American Ethical Union and the Council for Secular Humanism. All of these persons and groups have a track record of open hostility to people of faith, and some have been downright bigoted in their assault on Christianity, especially Catholicism. If President Obama does not want to go to church, that is his business. But it is the business of the American people, most all of whom are believers, to know where the president and his administration stand with regards to their concerns. It is not likely that this outreach to anti-religious activists—many of whom would crush Christianity if they could—will do anything to calm the fears of people of faith. Indeed, it will only alienate them even further. It is important that the public learn of the contents of this meeting. We will do what we can to find out what happened.

Susan A. Fani
Director of Communications
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

Open mouth, insert foot!

Smith, co-chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, expressed disappointment that "unplanned pregnancy" in the Global Health Initiative Consultation Document "seems to be relegated to the status of a disease — juxtaposed between HIV and tropical disease."

"Pregnancy is not a disease. The child in the womb is neither a tumor nor a parasite to be destroyed," Smith told the former First Lady.

"I respectfully ask that the administration consider that for many of us, all abortion — legal or illegal — is violence against children and poses significant, often underappreciated risks to women and even to children later born to post-abortive women," said Smith.

"Madame Secretary, the term ‘safe abortion’ is the ultimate oxymoron," he continued. "Child dismemberment, forced premature explosion from the womb by chemicals like misoprostol, deliberate child starvation by RU486, can never, ever be construed to be benign, compassionate or safe. UN Millennium Development Goal #4 seeks to reduce child mortality.

"Abortion is child mortality."

The congressman went on to recite a litany of women’s health risks linked to abortion, including psychological harm such as depression and thoughts of suicide, as well as the 30-40% rise in breast cancer risk cited by at least 28 studies. Smith pointed out the plethora of health risks for a post-abortive woman's subsequent children, including future premature birth, which at least 113 studies have shown to have a strong association with previous abortion.

Smith also criticized pro-abortion forces influencing the United Nations to expand the killing of the unborn under the heading of lowering maternal mortality rates. "Today, as never before, the largely preventable tragedy of maternal mortality is being exploited to promote unfettered access to abortion on demand," he said.

Finally, Smith confronted Clinton with the story of Wujan, a Chinese woman who testified to the Lantos Human Rights Commission last November about how the government forcibly aborted her unborn child. Wujan told the panel of the conditions where she was taken for the procedure:“The room was full of moms who had just gone through a forced abortion. Some moms were crying. Some moms were mourning. Some moms were screaming. And one mom was rolling on the floor with unbearable pain.”

"Then Wuijan said it was her turn, and through her tears she described what she called her 'journey in hell,'" said Smith. "Silence in the face of massive crimes against women in China — women like Wuijan — shouldn’t be an option."

Clinton did not give a response to Smith's state

Attention Catholics

Friday, February 26, 2010
The Forgotten Encyclical

We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty... but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore, as to maintain it [silence] longer would be a crime, We must now break silence, in order to expose before the whole Church in their true colours those men who have assumed this bad disguise.
We were warned. And a Pope St. Pius X warned back then, and as Michael Voris warns now, Holy Mother The Church has not only been infiltrated by the Enemies of Christ --- they are raping Her on a daily basis.

But because they wear Roman Collars, the vast majority of Catholics smile and look the other way.

This video is a must see.

Black population control worldwide! Obama's Plan.

February 25, 2010

New Report Shows American Law Firm Pushing Abortion on Africans
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a New York-based public interest law firm that seeks to expand abortion access globally, has issued a primer on "reproductive and sexual rights" jurisprudence in Africa, including abortion. Its launch comes at a time when largely western groups are increasing pressure on African nations to liberalize abortion laws.

"Legal Grounds: Reproductive and Sexual Rights in African Commonwealth Courts, Volume II" surveys a number of "reproductive rights" issues in countries that inherited a common-law legal system, and includes a chapter on "Abortion and Fetal Interests." It is intended as a tool for "women's rights advocates who seek to develop and strengthen litigation strategies at the national level."

While acknowledging that Africa as a region contains "some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world," CRR contends that there is "a growing trend towards liberalization of national laws," pointing to Africa's Maputo Protocol as evidence of a continental shift. The protocol is the only regional or international convention "to explicitly articulate the right to abortion" in certain circumstances. A number of nations that signed the document, such as Kenya and Uganda, have thus far refused to ratify it, however, in part due to concerns that the abortion provisions conflict with national laws and constitutions and over questions on how the protocol was negotiated.

CRR links legal developments in Africa with its global efforts to develop a "soft law" jurisprudence in favor of abortion rights, citing non-binding pronouncements by the committee overseeing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women as well as the Human Rights Committee, which monitors the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Among other things, CRR and these treaty compliance committees claim that restrictive abortion laws violate women's rights to privacy, non-discrimination and self-determination "guaranteed by both regional and international law."

The three cases cited in the CRR report are not as broad as this. One from South Africa and one from Kenya involve judicial interpretations of common law and statutory definitions of murder, whereby courts declined to expand the legal definition of the term to include death of the unborn.

In a second highlighted South African case, Stewart v. Botha, the court dismissed a "wrongful life" claim by parents of a severely disabled child who had sued doctors for failing to inform them of congenital defects which, had they known about them, would have led them to abort the child. Although abortion is legal in South Africa, allowing such a cause of action would violate the constitution's right-to-life provision, insofar as "it would proclaim that … life is worse than the possibility of non-existence." In CRR's analysis, this demonstrates "a judicial reluctance to take on the complexities of a wrongful life claim."

CRR's effort comes at a time when African nations such as Nigeria and Kenya have been considering constitutional revisions, with pro-lifers circulating language in both countries that would protect life from conception, which abortion advocates such as International Planned Parenthood Foundation have sought to counter.

The "reproductive and sexual rights" primer was unveiled at the 4th African Conference on Sexual Health and Rights, held recently in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as reported in the Friday Fax last week.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Where did the Primier of Canada go for his heart operation?

My heart, my choice,' Williams says, defending decision for U.S. heart surgery By Tara Brautigam (CP)– 16 hours ago
An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision.
In an interview with The Canadian Press, Williams said he went to Miami to have a "minimally invasive" surgery for an ailment first detected nearly a year ago, based on the advice of his doctors.
"This was my heart, my choice and my health," Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.
"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."
The 60-year-old Williams said doctors detected a heart murmur last spring and told him that one of his heart valves wasn't closing properly, creating a leakage.
He said he was told at the time that the problem was "moderate" and that he should come back for a checkup in six months.
Eight months later, in December, his doctors told him the problem had become severe and urged him to get his valve repaired immediately or risk heart failure, he said.
His doctors in Canada presented him with two options - a full or partial sternotomy, both of which would've required breaking bones, he said.
He said he spoke with and provided his medical information to a leading cardiac surgeon in New Jersey who is also from Newfoundland and Labrador. He advised him to seek treatment at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami.
That's where he was treated by Dr. Joseph Lamelas, a cardiac surgeon who has performed more than 8,000 open-heart surgeries.
Williams said Lamelas made an incision under his arm that didn't require any bone breakage.
"I wanted to get in, get out fast, get back to work in a short period of time," the premier said.
Williams said he didn't announce his departure south of the border because he didn't want to create "a media gong show," but added that criticism would've followed him had he chose to have surgery in Canada.
"I would've been criticized if I had stayed in Canada and had been perceived as jumping a line or a wait list.... I accept that. That's public life," he said.
"(But) this is not a unique phenomenon to me. This is something that happens with lots of families throughout this country, so I make no apologies for that."
Williams said his decision to go to the U.S. did not reflect any lack of faith in his own province's health care system.
"I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people," he said.
"We do whatever we can to provide the best possible health care that we can in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Canadian health care system has a great reputation, but this is a very specialized piece of surgery that had to be done and I went to somebody who's doing this three or four times a day, five, six days a week."
He quipped that he had "a heart of a 40-year-old, so that gives me 20 years new life," and said he intends to run in the next provincial election in 2011.
"I'm probably going to be around for a long time, hopefully, if God willing," he said.
"God forbid for the Canadian public I won't be around longer than ever."
Williams also said he paid for the treatment, but added he would seek any refunds he would be eligible for in Canada.
"If I'm entitled to any reimbursement from any Canadian health care system or any provincial health care system, then obviously I will apply for that as anybody else would," he said.
"But I wrote out the cheque myself and paid for it myself and to this point, I haven't even looked into the possibility of any reimbursement. I don't know what I'm entitled to, if anything, and if it's nothing, then so be it."
He is expected back at work in early March.

Questioning Obama's White House Meeting

Boehner, Cantor Question White House on Proposed Health Care Summit
“Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people?”

Washington -

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses. Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?

Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of openness and transparency?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.

These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks.

For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.

We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.


House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Think the alligator (Obuma) is friendly?

As you have no doubt heard, President Obama is once again trying to push health legislation through Congress. The White House has released an 11- page document outlining the bill the President will try to push through Congress. Though we don't have many details, the President is obviously recycling his already discredited bill. I want you to be aware of the following facts:

The White House proposal is more expensive than previous proposals. The White House estimates that this new proposal will likely cost $950 billion?"nearly $100 billion more than the Senate passed bill and almost $60 billion more than the House passed bill.

Health care costs will still go up. The White House proposal still increases health care costs and will drive up premiums. CBO already indicated that the base Senate bill would raise individual health insurance premiums by an average of $2,100 for every family.

More Tax Increases. The White House proposal adds a new 2.9% "Medicare tax" on unearned income such as capital gains, interest, and dividends for those individuals with more than $200,000 in income or couples with more than $250,000.

The White House proposal also includes new insurance, medical device, and pharmaceutical taxes. Americans for Tax Reform estimates that the entire White House proposal is a net tax hike of $748 billion.

Medicare Cuts: The White House proposal includes additional cuts to Medicare Advantage above and beyond those in the Senate bill.

The government-run plan is still being discussed. The White House has not specifically ruled out the inclusion of some form of government-run plan in the legislation.

Another federal board is proposed. The White House proposes the establishment of a new Federal Insurance Rate Authority to conduct reviews of unreasonable rate increase and other insurance practices. This new bureaucracy will give the federal government the authority to determine whether insurance rate increases are unreasonable and unjustified and the regulatory enforcement to lower insurance premiums, require rebates, or "take other actions" to lower premiums.

The so-called "Cadillac tax" is still included. The White House increases the threshold for the excise tax from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and delays the implementation date to 2018 for all health plans.

The employer mandate is more onerous. Relative to the Senate bill, the White House proposes increasing the penalty payment for employers who do not offer health care coverage to employees who are eligible for government subsidized health programs.
Please be assured that I will continue to keep you informed of these developments and I will continue to do all that I can to make sure that this proposal does not become law. As I have stated before, I do support commonsense reforms to our health care system but I refuse to vote for legislation that will ration care, lead to a government takeover of health care, allow government bureaucrats to stand between patients and their doctors and jeopardize the coverage of millions of people.


Member of Congress

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Keep praying that we return to the respectful days!

Vatican confirms freedom of priests to celebrate Extraordinary Form whenever they like – no need for 'stable group'
By Damian Thompson

Good news from Rome: the Vatican has further underlined the freedom of priests to celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form whenever they choose. Two important points have been clarified by Ecclesia Dei, which will make it more difficult for the English, Welsh and above all Scottish bishops to stall the implementation of Summorum Pontificum:

1. A priest does NOT have to be approached by a “stable group” of the faithful in order to schedule a PUBLIC celebration of the Extraordinary Form – he may choose to do so, for example, in order to introduce his parishioners to this ancient form of the Roman Rite. Or because it’s his aunt’s birthday. Any reason, really.

2. A Mass in the Extraordinary Form may replace a regularly scheduled Mass in the Ordinary Form.

You can find more details of the Ecclesia Dei ruling here, on the excellent New Liturgical Movement blog. I do hope that priests will be encouraged by this document to exercise their full rights under Summorum Pontificum. I know of several instances in which British bishops are trying to undermine the Pope’s wishes, though I’m not going to go public where it would make the situation worse. But it is common knowledge that the situation is particularly serious is Scotland, where EF Masses are extremely rare and official claims that there is no demand for them need to be scrutinised very carefully, shall we say. More on that later.

Meanwhile, traditionalist priests and seminarians should take heart. Your hour is coming.

posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus

Must listen to and Understand

On Saturday 2/20, Glenn Beck gave a speech to CPAC about America that can only be described as historic.... Grab a cup of coffee, get comfortable, and enjoy the show.
And please send this link (Cut and paste) to all you know, this is the message that will save America.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Some people in office, still believe in "One nation under GOD"


Some of you may be wondering what Judge Roy Moore has been doing since he was removed from the bench for refusing to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom wall. Please read the poem he wrote.
The following is a poem written by Judge Roy Moore from Alabama . Judge Moore was sued by the ACLU for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom foyer. He has been stripped of his judgeship and now they are trying to strip his right to practice law in Alabama ! The judge's poem sums it up quite well.

America the beautiful,
or so you used to be.
Land of the Pilgrims' pride;
I'm glad they'll never see.

Babies piled in dumpsters,
Abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty;
your house is on the sand.

Our children wander aimlessly
poisoned by cocaine
choosing to indulge their lusts,
when God has said abstain

From sea to shining sea,
our Nation turns away
From the teaching of God's love
and a need to always pray

We've kept God in our
temples, how callous we have grown.
When earth is but His footstool,
and Heaven is His throne..

We've voted in a government
that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges;
who throw reason out the door,

Too soft to place a killer
in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
before he leaves the womb.

You think that God's not
angry, that our land's a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait
before His judgment comes?

How are we to face our God,
from Whom we cannot hide?
What then is left for us to do,
but stem this evil tide?

If we who are His children,
will humbly turn and pray;
Seek His holy face
and mend our evil way:

Then God will hear from Heaven;
and forgive us of our sins,
He'll heal our sickly land
and those who live within.

But, America the Beautiful,
If you don't - then you will see,
A sad but Holy God
withdraw His hand from Thee..

~~Judge Roy Moore~~
This says it all. May we all forward this message and offer our prayers for Judge Moore to be blessed and for America to wake up and realize what we need to do to keep OUR America the Beautiful.

Pass this on and let's lift Judge Moore up in Prayer. He has stood firm and needs our support. IN GOD WE TRUST!

Understand where our country is heading, and vote to stop it

From Dick Morris:
One of my favorite quotes about politics comes from Henry Kissinger in his book Years of Upheaval, his memoir of the Ford Presidency:

"A statesman's duty is to bridge the gap between his vision and his nation's experience. If his vision gets too far out ahead of his nation's experience, he will lose his mandate. But if he hues too close to the conventional, he will lose control over events."

Now, at once, we see both happening to President Obama.

His health care proposals obviously ran afoul of the first of Kissinger's warnings. By pushing for changes that conflicted with America's values, common sense, and experience, he lost his mandate. In that disastrous push for an elusive goal, he ruined his own presidency and his party. It may take decades for the Democratic Party to recover from his folly. Indeed, his push for health legislation, in the face of rapidly eroding public support, ranks with the War in Vietnam, Watergate, and, of course, Clinton's health care initiatives as the most costly to their respective political parties.

But now, as he faces threats from Iran, domestic terrorism, continually high unemployment, and the swollen deficit, he is also violating the second half of the Kissinger warning - his politics are too passive and too conventional and, as a result, losing control over events.

In the phase of presidential dithering in the aftermath of the Brown victory in Massachusetts, there is no clear presidential message, no coherent strategy and, even, no identifiable program. His budget cuts are far too tepid. His tax program nothing new. Obama's stimulus 2 package seems like the same old, same old.

His short lived bounce from the State of the Union speech is indicative of how limited a vision he has these days. It lasted a week and was never more than three points at its apogee.

And, as Kissinger would have predicted, he is losing control over events. Senator Evan Bayh's retirement, with its implied blast at Obama's policies, the increasing recklessness of Iran, and the seemingly intractable unemployment all provide evidence that President Obama is no longer dictating the national agenda.

As a result, the negatives he incurred by moving too far out ahead of the nation's experience are combining with those he is getting for being too conventional. He is experiencing both ends of the Kissinger prediction. Republicans and Independents are still in shock from his headlong rush into socialism while Democrats are increasingly restive and disillusioned by his failure to lead.

And...the entire country is worried at his passivity in the face of domestic terror threats and the rapidly growing Iranian momentum toward the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

While his job rating has remained relatively stead in recent months, hovering just below 50% of likely voters, his ratings in specific areas - like holding down spending, cutting the deficit, creating jobs, and managing the economy -- are all eroding, presaging further drops in his overall ratings.

Seemingly paralyzed by adversity, President Obama and his advisors are showing a lack of resilience in the face of reversals that is perhaps the inevitable outcome of his smooth rise to the top in 2008. Never tried by bad outcomes (as Hillary has doubtless been), he and they seem unable to regain momentum and appear to be just flailing without strategic or even tactical direction.

All this might be what happens when you elect a State Senator whose US Senate career was consumed with his presidential campaign as president.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

What is Conservatism

By Bob Beers Monday, February 15, 2010
Today’s newspaper was filled with stories, articles and columns regarding the potential electoral disaster facing the Democrats this coming November. Even the Las Vegas Sun, Nevada’s lone liberal rag carried a column by the New York Times offering a serious warning to the Democrat establishment that they ignore the Tea Party at their own peril. The one overriding point missing from all of these and practically every other piece written by the Mainstream Media since the days of George Bush Senior is, just what a conservative is.

From MSNBC on, every liberal elite outlet sniffs with distain at the very mention of the word “conservative.” They sip their overpriced chardonnay as they nibble truffle-enhanced Pâté de foie gras while declaring in their upper class accents that conservatism is out of step with everyday America. It is not surprising that even now these pseudo intellectuals consider the elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts to be aberrations. The likes of Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Lawrence O’Donnel and Norah O’Donnell will never get it. Miss O’Donnell even went so far as to verbally attack a young girl for being in line at a Sarah Palin book signing. The left is falling apart. Their anger and hatred, and frankly, their fear of a conservative ascendancy have boiled over. The Tea Party Movement is the chief cause of this.

The sad part of all this is that far too many in the GOP leadership also don’t get it. All too often I hear the same dismissive tones coming from Republican leadership with regard to the Tea Party movement as I do from the Democrats, and not only that, just like the Democrats, many so-called leaders within the GOP actively work to remove their own colleagues from office if that colleague will not work with them in corruption. How do I know this? I was one of those targeted for being “too honest.”

Simply being against taxes is not enough
What today’s conservatives need is a manifesto, a list of those characteristics and policies that define what a conservative is. Simply being against taxes is not enough. I know of too many in my own party who use that simplistic measurement and then blithely vote to continue stealing from the taxpayer for no other cause than their own enrichment.

Constitutional Honesty
The first item in this new Conservative Manifesto should be Constitutional Honesty. Right now the liberal elite are outraged over a correct decision by the Supreme Court to remove the McCain-Feingold stricture on corporations being able to donate to political races. Unfortunately, so are enough Republicans to be worrisome. Whether you chose to accept it or not, corporations are made up of people. ‘Nuff said.

The Constitution was written by men (advised by a number of very strong women) who knew first hand what it felt like to live under the very type of system the liberal elite would love to see enacted in this country. Again, whether or not they like it, the constitution gives us the right to own any type of firearm we choose. It gives us the right to voice nonviolent opinion, worship wherever we choose, even if it is in school or city hall, disagree with the President, even if he is a mulatto, and to prosper in our business, even if we become wealthy doing so. What it does not do is allow us to lie, cheat and steal our way to wealth or power, and that is where the real conservative is separated from the phonies.

US Sovereignty
The second item is US Sovereignty. If you want to send a liberal right off the deep end, suggest that the United States of America adopt the same type of rules considered a matter of course by most countries (several of which the liberal considers far more enlightened than the US); a national language and mandatory expulsion of illegal aliens. Sweden does this, and because they are socialist they are completely accepted by the mushy-brained set. Let it even be mentioned by a US representative and that poor sap is being hung in effigy that day.

We have a right to secure borders and we have a right to our own language, US English. Legal citizens of the US have the right to expect to be treated better than lawbreakers. Citizens of this country are the ones paying the bills and as the bill payer they deserve to have the first place in the line. Of course, this attitude is considered to be hateful and racist by the liberal elite. The attitude of the true conservative toward them should be, if you don’t like it; leave.

Sanctity of innocent life
Third is the sanctity of innocent life. Science today has reached the point where any honest biologist would have to admit that an unborn child in the womb of a human mother is an identifiably separate human life. It may be entirely dependent upon the mother for continued existence and growth, but that in now way invalidates that growing life’s individuality. This is simple proven science and yet it is another unbending hot button for the liberal. The news is replete with stories of protesters crowding together outside the gate of a prison holding candlelight vigils on the eve of the execution of a convicted murderer. There is no consideration with regard to how vile the committed crime may have been. These half-watt intellects are filled with compassion for their perceived victim of the state. Bear in mind this group has nothing to say about the thousands executed by Islamic states. They could not care less about the millions executed by every communist dictator since Lenin, nor do they breathe a single syllable of regret for any child murdered by Middle Eastern suicide-killers. The greatest hypocrisy of all, you ask? They celebrate every time an unborn child is murdered by a physician violating their Hippocratic Oath.

A true conservative defends innocent life, whether it be in the womb or not. Politics is not given a single place in this decision. If that defense costs a position of power, so be it. If it costs money, too bad, what is right is right and any argument to the contrary is wrong on its face. Some prices are simply too high to pay.

Fourth is the economy. That’s right; a real conservative does not place money at the pinnacle. A real conservative understands that certain principles are more important that wealth. With that said, the economy holds a solid place near the top because a real conservative also understands that in order to be a productive citizen, people need real jobs. The liberal elite consider most employers to be the enemy, unless that employer happens to employ them or gives huge campaign contributions to avowed socialists like Obama, Pelosi, or Reid. Common sense dictates that in order to stimulate an economy, the best thing a government can do is allow business to grow and allow competition to be the rule within the marketplace. Of course, not one honest thinker can ever ascribe common sense to the liberal mind. History has more examples of the liberal experiment destroying an economy than it has of wars causing death. All right, some hyperbole there, but the point stands. Liberalism has never grown an economy…ever, and yet the mushy-brained continue to insist that their way will work…this time. You all know the definition of insanity.

Personal freedom
Fifth on this list, is personal freedom. The liberal believes that such a right only applies to them and those groups they champion: terrorists, communists, Marxists, baby killers, mass murderers, traitors and so on. No, personal freedom belongs to every legal citizen within this country. It is not and should not be a right extended to anyone who belongs to or supports a group whose aim is to harm those citizens. For far too long our freedoms have been chipped away by Washington elites who believe they know better how to lead our lives than we do. Because of this belief we have become smothered by a blanket of laws that have no reason for existing other than to give careers to people incapable of competing in the free market. Every single one of them, laws governing what kind of car you can drive, laws telling you dress like a Star Wars Storm Trooper before you can ride a bike, laws telling you what kind of food you can eat, and so on into infinity, should be abolished in favor of one simple statute; if you do something stupid to yourself, you are responsible for any costs you incur. If your stupidity causes harm to someone else, you pay through the nose, regardless your position or power. If this causes some lawyers to get an honest job…again, too bad.

Global warming has its place in the conservative doctrine just as do many other scientific and educational issues. A real conservative agrees with real science. We know that Darwinism, Creationism and Intelligent Design, as far a science is concerned, are all theories. If you call evolution a scientific fact, you are wrong. Evolution, the way it is taught, can no more be proven by science than the existence of God. Science is not faith and faith is not science. A real conservative is able to live with both. Global warming has not only not been proven, but it has been revealed as false far too many times for the honest to ignore. Global temperatures have actually gone down since the high point in the early 1990’s and several highly reputable climatologists believe that the earth may be entering another cooling period similar to that that caused the mini ice age back in Napoleon’s day. But the validation of this theory could cost Al Gore money, and the liberal elite cannot let that happen. They even have the gall to call those who disabuse the global warming nonsense as “unpatriotic.”

The last thing is extremism. Most Americans are not extremists; the liberal elite are excluded from the list because by definition a liberal elitist cannot be a real American. Their own extremism makes true active citizenship impossible. The ongoing knock against the Tea Party Movement is that of extremism, and to continue the honesty, the movement has welcomed some extremist with open arms. The only extreme the true conservative embraces is an extreme love and respect for the founding documents of this country, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.
Posted by itzik janowitz at 11:13 AM

Monday, February 15, 2010

Where does DRVC stand in this issue?

Open Letter to Tom Grenchik Regarding USCCB Cooperation With and Support for Pro-Abortion and Radical Homosexual Groups
by Michael Hichborn
Released February 4, 2010

(The following letter was written in response to an e-mail dated February 2, 2010, sent to all diocesan pro-life offices and state Catholic conference directors by Tom Grenchik, executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat. We are responding publicly because we do not have access to Mr. Grenchik’s e-mail list.)

Dear Mr. Grenchik,

Your February 2 letter to diocesan pro-life and Catholic conference directors incorrectly claims we are accusing the executive director of the USCCB’s Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development of supporting abortion and the radical homosexual agenda.

There is no doubt that John Carr (who, as head of this department, has oversight of Catholic Campaign for Human Development) has spoken often about the need to defend the preborn; moreover, this is not the issue. As we have stated repeatedly, we are not calling into question John Carr’s pro-life convictions.

The issue is a serious lack of prudence displayed by the USCCB’s social justice arm in its dealings with organizations whose aims directly contradict Church teaching. We have provided carefully verified and detailed factual evidence to support this charge.

I tried to meet and speak with John Carr several months ago, when American Life League joined the Reform CCHD Now coalition, but he refused. Thus, his claim that we never contacted him is false.

I have reported on at least 50 CCHD grantees engaged in activities contrary to Church teaching—and which continue to receive CCHD funds. I disproved the CCHD’s claim that there is nothing wrong with the San Francisco Organizing Project by providing evidence that it helped to create and promote pro-abortion “health care” legislation, but the CCHD was silent. We reported on the 31 CCHD grantees partnered with the Center for Community Change, which embraces a radical pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, but again, the CCHD was silent.

So, when we reported on John Carr’s chairmanship of the Board of Directors for the Center for Community Change, we suggested that the CCHD’s silence and apparent lack of response might be the result of his cozy relationship with this organization.

Our charge of serious imprudence was further validated by the following findings:

We released our report on the morning of February 1. At that time, we had verified that the CCC was endorsed on the CCHD’s web site, but later that same day, the reference to the CCC had mysteriously disappeared.
Tom Chabolla, who worked under Carr at the CCHD until 2008, served on the CCC board while working for the CCHD.
Ralph McCloud, the CCHD’s current director, spoke at a CCC-sponsored event that praised the election of Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in U.S. history.
This is only a small piece of a much larger picture. The CCHD has a long history of funding and collaborating with organizations that promote abortion and the radical homosexual agenda, and this history continues to this day.

In fact, it recently came to our attention that John Carr will be presenting this weekend at the USCCB-sponsored 2010 Catholic Social Ministry Gathering. There are several problems with this conference, but we will mention just a few here.

Diana Hayes is a professor of systematic theology at Georgetown University and noted speaker for Call to Action, the radical “Catholic” dissident group. Hayes is a radical homosexual activist who wrote a book espousing liberation theology, calls for women’s ordination and promotes same-sex “marriage.”

Mind you, these are not mere incidental associations; these speakers were invited as authorities to address our Church’s supposed defenders of the poor, and workers for peace and justice. Can anyone look at this speaker lineup and think that the USCCB is thinking clearly about Catholic social teaching? Why are those who represent openly anti-life and pro-homosexualist organizations treated as experts in the field of peace and justice by Catholics who should know better?

How many of our bishops know that these representatives of anti-Catholic organizations and philosophies are being treated—by the USCCB, no less—as experts on Catholic teaching?

Page 6 of the conference program book provides a schedule for the Catholic Labor Network gathering. (click here for the Catholic Labor Network schedule)

John Carr is scheduled to join Paul Booth (a founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society) in a panel discussion. Paul Booth’s wife is Heather Booth, who currently sits on the board of the Center for Community Change. Paul and Heather Booth founded the Midwest Academy, a training institute for left-wing community organizers.

Heather Booth is also a former consultant for the National Organization for Women and, in 1965, organized a group called JANE, which helped young women obtain illegal abortions. More directly, Paul Booth joins his wife as a member of the host committee for the National Organization for Women’s Intrepid Awards Gala. Currently, Paul Booth is executive assistant to the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The AFSCME endorsed the pro-abortion March for Freedom of Choice, held in Washington, D.C. in 2004.

Also presenting at the Catholic Labor Network gathering is Father Thomas Reese, SJ, who resigned as editor of America magazine, reportedly under pressure by the Vatican, for his refusal to stop publishing articles that questioned Church teachings on issues such as contraception, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, homosexual priests, mandatory clerical celibacy and whether pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians should be given Holy Communion.

As Catholics, we are hurt, we are scandalized and we are horrified that the USCCB continues to cavort with the enemies of the body of Christ, even to the point of inviting them to speak as authorities on the Catholic view of social justice, which they most certainly are not. The primary purpose of the Catholic Church is the salvation of souls, not to “develop economic strength and political power” as professed in the CCHD’s mission statement.

We have simply presented the facts about CCHD funding for these radical organizations; yet other than defunding a very few organizations, the CCHD has thus far refused to take appropriate action and, so far, John Carr has refused to speak with us.

Again, our report is not about his pro-life credentials, but about his and others’ continued cooperation with those who openly oppose the Church and do all they can to undermine her moral authority.

We ask you, with all due respect, to stop misrepresenting our claims and ignoring the thrust of our reports by recasting them as a personal attack on John Carr. Both honesty and charity require you set the record straight with the directors of state Catholic conferences and diocesan pro-life offices.

Michael Hichborn

Lead researcher on the CCHD

American Life League

The floor of Hell is lined with the skulls of Bishops

Helmet tip to the enigmatic Patrick

I recently did a posting in regards to the Bishop of Little Rock, Arkansas defaming to late General Robert E. Lee.

I've just received another combox posting from the same man who alerted me to the Rbt E. Lee attack;

Here is a 12/6/10 Taylor homily that is just as anti military and anti American as the Lee smear. Read this knowing that Taylor was a conscientious objector in the 60's. He has professed it many times publicly. His pathological hypocrisy and convoluted interpretation of history are on full display in this article. Most of his social teachings in Arkansas are heavily laced with a Marxist strain of liberation theology. In my opinion, his world view holds white capitalists as the predominate oppressor he references in this article.
Well, I went to that particular web page... and a more broad-brushed, anti-American, half-truth-ed liberal drivel put to paper, you'll be hard pressed to find. Here's some of it; (Emphasis mine)

Everyone knew it was suicide to defy the Romans and King Herod, their puppet, so they just acted like confronting these evils was none of their business. John the Baptist, however, believed that nothing is impossible for God and that faithfulness to God requires that we confront evil, regardless of what it may cost us personally, even at the cost of our very life.

So John did what he could to make straight the path of freedom, level oppressors and call people to conversion before it was too late.

Our world today is not that much different from that of previous generations.

People and nations -- including our own -- continue to pursue power, possessions, pleasure and prestige at the expense of the poor and vulnerable. Sexual immorality -- and even worse, abortion -- continues to cause tremendous damage to individual lives and to our society as a whole.

And isn't it true that we mostly act like confronting these evils is none of our business? Pearl Harbor should have taught us the foolishness of failing to confront evil until it's too late. And no matter what kind of evil.

Evil destroys, enslaves, oppresses and exploits. Remember, nothing is impossible for God. Like John the Baptist, we too are called to do what we can -- in our time -- to make straight the path of freedom, level oppressors and call people to conversion, before it's too late.
How dare this man. How dare he.

I won't get into the nuts and bolt of how patently full of crap his "homily" is, suffice it to say that I'll give two basic reminders to him of that horrible nation that he is so fortunate to reside in -- the same nation that "continue to pursue power, possessions, pleasure and prestige at the expense of the poor and vulnerable".

1. Presider Taylor, millions of Americans have died to liberate oppressed peoples throughout the entire world. You've desecrated not only their memory, but their ultimate sacrifice as well. You should be ashamed of yourself.

2. Presider Taylor, if this nation is so driven by such an evil as you've described, when why is it that millions of those who purposefully break the emigration laws of this nation (thus classifying themselves as 'evil') continue to throng to this very same evil country? The same law-breakers that you're so enamoured with?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Taylor.
posted by Vir Speluncae Catholicus

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Bishop Dunne,Bishop Murphy,Msgr Lisante, fine speeches but their actions show how false they are!

What Nonsense wrote:

Glad to see the Holy Hour get canceled. One less bunch of extremist nonsense we have to worry about.
anonymous 2 wrote:
He so dumb as to believe he isn't being monitored???

Too bad you really do not understand what was posted foolish coward2. The meeting I had alluded to was between the vitriolic ranters with Nange4jpl as the arranger, and the Bishops office and supposedly the NCPD some months ago. After which nange4jpl,nomorekoolaide,and listeningln, ceased to post anymore.
But why should I bother trying to explain when twisting things around is what Liberals like yourself do time and time again.
Just like your phony MD and his attempt to sound real. It is the case of the Blind leading the Blind. The progressives in this parish appear to have the upper hand, as they are aligned with
Bishop Dunne and the changes they are making. What a shame, the
Bishop talked about being available for discussion, and when approached with anything contrary to the progressive ideas, with tongue in cheek, and not even bothering to look at the person talking, stated "That is not what I had heard" What a waste! The powers to be have already decided what course they are heading towards. Just like the request by 500 parishioners for a conservative Pastor to the Bishops committee, their minds are made up, and anyone who believes that they are being heard, and that common sense will prevail, are sadly mistaken. Their action of removing the M & M twins Fatima Holy Hour , and Anne Murphy's several decades of mass for the pro life vigil, by Msgr Lisante will not do much to enhance the growth of the parish, nor the increase in donations.That action belie his anti-abortion speeches.
The main reason was ,that Msgr Lisante did not want Fr Driscoll,
the author of the superb books For The Love of Mary ,and Defending The Papacy, from celebrating Mass. As the foolish, "know nothing" poster(what nonsense) had said "About time they canceled the Holy Hour. It was filled with people not from OLL parish ... the kind of religious kooks that you associate with, Itchy. One more piece of the extremist faction gone from OLL". That is an
indication of the kind of blind fools that you are.
I hope that this will be my last post answering your rants , as to try to convince you of the fallacy of your thoughts would be a waste of my time. I will continue to monitor the actions at OLL,
and pray that my predictions DO NOT COME TO PASS.
Yours in Jesus,

Saturday, February 13, 2010

A Pastor out of control, is he doing this in the name of Jesus?

Yet another senseless attack on Our Lady of Lourdes by the Pastor:
The persecution of Marian priests at OLL continues with the news that Msgr. Jim Lisante not only has cancelled Anne Murphy's longstanding monthly pro-life vigil and Mass of several decades, but also has cancelled the M+M twins' Fatima Holy Hour scheduled for this month.
The reason for both these cancellation revolve around the fact that Msgr. Lisante has decided to ban the outstanding defender of Our Lady and the Pope, Fr. Paul Driscoll, the author of the superb books For The Love of Mary and Defending The Papacy, from celebrating Mass and preaching at Our Lady of Lourdes parish in Massapequa Park.
This despicable act calls to mind the warning given by Our Lady of Akita in Japan in the early 1970's about the coming persecution of priests devoted to her. This apparition was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger when he was head of the CDF:
"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres...churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord."
Feel free to share this distressing news with others, especially about the very popular Fatima Holy Hour being cancelled.

My feelings from the beginning apparently were true. This pastor was sent to Our Lady of Lourdes not to build it up, but to tear it down, and rip out the heart of the parish. And then doing so, when the backbone of the parish for decades leave, he tries to entice them back. The safeguard to such action being taken remains in the hands of the Bishop. If this is allowed to continue, then the Bishop is the one who has pushed for the removal of the parish's backing and heart. What will remain in this parish will cause the transformation of OLL into a Protestant-like parish. How soon before we see CLOWNS, and Dancing people, contorting around the altar, as has happened in several Catholic Church's? When the remnant of the parishioners leave
OLL, its destruction will be close at hand. This is the effect of Progressive Pastors, who have sworn to Shepherd and care for the flock, as a True Pastor should,
but who had no intention to keep that promise.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Debunking the Lies

February 11, 2010

Chilean Maternal Mortality Study Undercuts Pro-Abortion Claims
By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Preliminary findings by a prominent biomedical researcher examining the dramatic decrease in maternal mortality, over the past fifty years in the Latin American nation of Chile, appear to undercut claims by global abortion lobbyists that liberal abortion laws are necessary to reduce maternal mortality rates.

According Dr. Elard Koch, an epidemiologist on the faculty of medicine at the University of Chile, Chile's promotion of "safe pregnancy" measures such as "prenatal detection" and accessibility to professional birth attendants in a hospital setting are primarily responsible for the decrease in maternal mortality. The maternal mortality rate declined from 275 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 1960 to 18.7 deaths in 2000, the largest reduction in any Latin country.

Because Chile is a nation that protects unborn life in its penal laws and constitution, the decline is therefore not attributable to access to legal abortion. In fact, the preliminary study shows, maternal mortality in Chile declined over the last century regardless of whether abortion was legal or illegal. Chile tightened its restrictions on abortion in the late 1980s.

According to Dr. Koch, "From 1960 onwards, there has been a breakthrough in the public health system and primary care" in Chile, with resources devoted to the development of "highly trained personnel, the construction of many primary health centers and the increase of schooling of the population.” Education appeared to be a primary factor in the country’s improved maternal health. Chile today touts a maternal health record comparable to those of developed nations.

Statistics released the World Health Organization (WHO) support such conclusions. In South America, according to WHO, Chile boasts of the lowest rate of maternal mortality, whereas Guyana, which significantly liberalized its laws in the mid-1990s citing concern over maternal deaths, has the highest.

Indeed, perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of the decline of maternal death rates in the developed world, a peer-reviewed article by Irvine Loudon appearing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2000 confirms that the “sudden and dramatic decline in maternal mortality rates, which occurred after 1937, took place in all developed countries and eliminated the previously wide country-level differences in national mortality rates. The main factors that led to this decline seem to have been successive improvements in maternal care.”

As with Chile today, these strides in the developed world occurred at a time before access to abortion had been liberalized. Thus it appears that improving access to quality maternal health care, rather than permissive abortion laws, is what drives reductions in maternal death during pregnancy and delivery.

Maternal health experts such as noted obstetrician Donna Harrison, MD, point out that introducing abortion in a developing world setting without first improving basic maternal health care increases the risk of maternal death since health systems cannot adequately respond to complications from invasive surgical procedures such as abortion. Indeed, nations such as South Africa, which has one of the continent’s most liberal abortion regimes, has seen an increase in maternal deaths attributable in part to complications arising from legal abortion.

Dr. Koch presented his initial findings at the inaugural meeting of the International Working Group for Global Women's Health Research last month in Washington, DC.

Real American change is coming in November



With the pickup of two state Assembly seats in Tuesday's special elections in Westchester and Suffolk counties, New York Republicans are following up on Scott Brown's historic win in "true blue" Massachusetts. Come November, one-party rule in Albany will be on the chopping block.

In fact, the return to relevance of core GOP principles -- and a New York party dedicated to those principles -- has been underway for most of a year. Join the Taxpayer Revolt!

Your donation today WILL make a difference!

In 2008, Democrats won complete control of government in both Washington and Albany for the first time since 1935. In Congress, they used this absolute power to arrogantly jam through costly big-government programs, seasoned with huge slices of pork. In New York, corruption of a magnitude shocking even by Albany's standards, combined with out-of-control special interests, has yielded ever-bigger budgets and deficits, higher taxes and job-killing regulation.

Yet, while Democrats grew more partisan, the voters -- suffering the extraordinary losses of the Great Recession -- were focussing on kitchen-table issues. The tea-party movement is just the edge of the public's anger.

Yes, Democrats still hold a large edge in registration in our state. But the core GOP message of fiscal responsibility and limited, efficient and clean government is resonating with New York voters -- especially the independents who control the balance of the electorate.

Hence last fall's wave of wins for fiscally conservative Republicans in counties across the state. In Westchester, where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one, a Republican beat the personally popular, three-term Democratic county executive on a platform of efficient government, capping spending and reducing taxes.

And no, it wasn't just an anti-incumbent wave: In Rockland (also two-to-one Democratic), the GOP county executive won a fifth term thanks to efficient governing and a fiscally conservative record.

Like most Americans in these economic times, New Yorkers want fiscally conservative governance. Long-suffering Empire State taxpayers are in full revolt against profligate government. Yet Albany's Democratic leadership is wandering aimlessly in a desert of corruption, regulation, deficits, taxes and debt.

This year, the state GOP and its candidates will present a bold vision of a government that fosters job creation and relief for New York's forgotten taxpayers.

A prior Republican administration in Albany created a high-tech nanotechnology industry in the upper Hudson Valley and one of the country's best charter-school programs. The Democratic powers that now run Albany kill private-sector jobs -- and passed on a chance for $700 million in federal aid because they didn't want to boost charters.

In Pennsylvania, Marcellus Shale natural gas is a multibillion-dollar industry. The same should be true across the border in the Southern Tier of New York -- but unemployment remains high there, as Democratic regulators smother the development of this low-carbon energy source.

Job creation, good schools and economic development aren't just Republican principles, they're American principles. But the Democrats who control Albany have forsaken them.

Which is a big reason why the GOP no longer fits the old stereotypes. Today, we are Asian small-business owners, middle-income suburban families and Upstate dairy farmers -- and union members who understand that a better business environment means more work; Hispanics and African-Americans who believe in family values and want school choice, plus everyone scrimping to balance the family budget and wondering why our governments can't do the same.

And, after a rough period for New York's GOP, we are rebuilding the state party from the local level up.

In the first five weeks of my chairmanship, leading up to last November's elections, we put a new statewide strategy into action, raising funds from individual donors and infusing support into targeted races, including more than $ 1.5 million to county committees and candidates. We'll help all our candidates in 2010, in close cooperation with our elected officials and party leaders across the state.

We've already helped recruit an impressive crop of new congressional and state legislative candidates -- and are aggressively encouraging more good candidates to take the field.

Economic growth. More good jobs. Tax and spending cuts and caps. Rebuilding our aging infrastructure. Regulatory relief. Government transparency and accountability. Across New York, our candidates are spreading the GOP message.

Our recent victories in New York -- and recent GOP triumphs on other "Democratic turf" such as Massachusetts and New Jersey -- prove that the message is resonating with the voters. That gives Republicans a unique opportunity to win big this fall and start returning New York to its rightful position as the envy of the nation and the world.

Edward F. Cox

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Answer to Planned Abortionists

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new report by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) on sex education:

The goal of IPPF is to sexually engineer society, and one way to accomplish this feat is to smear religious conservatives, especially Catholics. This new report not only substantiates this charge, it makes it clear that Planned Parenthood wants to bring its irresponsible ideas to bear on kids.

“IPPF uses the terms young people, youth and adolescents interchangeably to refer to people who are between 10 and 24.” In other words, 5th graders should be treated the same way graduate students are when it comes to their “sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

The entire program is based on a faulty assumption. IPPF says that “The taboo on youth sexuality is one of the key forces driving the AIDS epidemic and high rates of teenage pregnancy and maternal mortality.” Nonsense. In the 1950s, there was no sex education in the schools, the pill was not commercially available and AIDS didn’t exist. Yet the out-of-wedlock birth rate was comparatively miniscule and sexually transmitted diseases were relatively rare. All because of taboos.

According to IPPF, it’s those Catholics—who are indistinguishable from radical Islamists—who are the problem.“Fundamentalist and other religious groups—the Catholic Church and madrasas (Islamic schools) for example—have imposed tremendous barriers that prevent young people, particularly, from obtaining information and services related to sex and reproduction.”

So the kids in Sister Mary’s class who learn about responsible sex are analogous to Imam Mohammad’s kids who are either denied sex education or are told that homosexuality is punishable by death. Finally, why is it that public school students, who know so much more about sex than those dunces in the parochial schools, are precisely the ones walking around with the highest rates of illegitimacy, abortion and herpes?

Susan A. Fani

Director of Communications

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Think the PIGS Are in Trouble? These 7 U.S. States Could Be Heading for Something Worse

If we do not get these Liberals out of office this can spread through-out our 50 states. Obuma does not know what he is doing, and the Liberals in congress do not care read on:
The inevitable coming of the sovereign debt panic finally engulfed Europe this week as the derisively (or perhaps affectionately) named PIGS spilled their slop on the continent. But Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain are hardly worthy of so much attention. In truth, they are little more than the currently favored proxies among the leveraged speculator community (cough) for the larger problem of all sovereign debt. Indeed, the credit default swaps on these smaller European satellite states were not alone this week in making large moves higher. UK sovereign risk rose strongly, and so did US sovereign risk. With a downgrade warning from Moody’s to boot.

Notable among three of the PIGS are their relatively small populations, and small contributions to either world or European GDP. While Spain has a population over 45 million, Portugal and Greece have populations roughly equal to a US state, such as Ohio–at around 10 million. And Ireland? The Emerald Isle has a population similar to Kentucky, at around 4 million. While the PIGS are without question a problem for Europe, whatever problems they present for Brussels are easily matched by the looming headache for Washington that’s coming from large, US states such as California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan.

I’ve identified seven large US states by four criteria that are sure to cause trouble for Washington’s political class at least for the next 3 years, through the 2012 elections. These are states with big populations, very high rates of unemployment, and which have already had to borrow big to pay unemployment claims. In addition, as a kind of kicker, I’ve thrown in a fourth criteria to identify those states that are large net importers of energy. Because the step change to higher energy prices played, and continues to play, such a large role in the developed world’s financial crisis it’s instructive to identify those US states that will struggle for years against the rising tide of higher energy costs.

First, let’s consider a large state that didn’t make my list. Texas didn’t make the list because its unemployment rate has not risen high enough to reach my cutoff: a state must register broad, U-6 underemployment above 15%, and currently Texas has only reached 13.7% on that measure. Also, Texas’s total energy production nearly perfectly matches its total energy consumption. Of course, Texas has indeed had to borrow more than a billion dollars so far to pay unemployment claims, thus technically bankrupting its unemployment trust fund. That meets my criteria. But, it’s instructive to note Texas’ energy production capacity in this regard, as that produces dollars. And one of the big reasons US states are under so much pressure, like their European counterparts, is that they cannot print currency. Being able to produce oil and gas is the next best thing to printing currency. So, Texas doesn’t make my list.

The seven states to make my list are California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey. Each has a population above 8 million people. Each has had to borrow more than a billion dollars, so far, to pay claims out of their now bankrupt unemployment insurance fund. Also, each state currently registers broad, underemployment above 15% as indicated by the U-6 measure for the States. And finally, each state is a large net importer of either oil, natural gas, electricity, or all three of these energy sources.

Let’s consider the overall predicament for residents of states like California, with its epic housing bust, Ohio and Michigan at the end of the automobile era, or North Carolina and New Jersey in light of the financial sector’s demise. Not only have states such as these permanently lost key sectors that once drove their economies, but, residents in these states are over-exposed to structurally higher energy costs. The prospect for wage growth in the United States is now dim. We are already recording year over year wage decreases in real terms. The culprit? Energy and food costs. My seven states are squeezed hard at both ends: no wage growth at the top, and no relief through cheaper energy costs at the bottom.

US wage growth in real terms has been stagnant for years. And the most recent decade of higher oil prices has been particularly punishing to states over-leveraged to the automobile like California, Florida, and North Carolina where highway and road systems dwarf public transport. While it’s true that states like Ohio and California produce some oil and gas, the size of their populations overwhelm any production with outsized demand for electricity and gasoline. In contrast, and as I mentioned, it will be revealing to see how this depression ultimately plays out in such states as Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Louisiana which are all net exporters of energy.

Were it not for peak oil, gasoline prices would have fallen to a dollar during this depression as oil returned to the lows of the late 1990’s–if not even lower. Petrol at 90 cents a gallon would begin to chip away at the painfully decreasing spread between punk wages and energy input costs, currently endured by underemployed Americans. Natural gas and coal prices are also much higher than they were at the lows of the 1990’s. And I need not remind: while energy prices are very 2010, the American workforce has lost so many jobs that our labor force has indeed returned the 1990’s.

21st century energy prices overlaid on a 20th century economy? That’s no fun at all. The mainstream economics profession, perhaps unsurprisingly, still does not pay enough attention to the interweaving of long-term stagnant wage growth, higher energy inputs, and the resulting credit creation that OECD countries took as the solution to resolve that squeeze. Given that one of out of eight Americans takes food stamps, a visit to states like Illinois, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina would reveal that the difference between 15 dollar oil and 75 dollar oil, and 2 dollar natural gas and 5 dollar natural gas is large.

My seven states of energy debt represent a full 35% of the total US population. As with other US states, they face looming policy clashes between protected state and city workers on one hand, and the growing ranks of the private economy’s underemployed on the other. The recent circus at the LA City Council meeting was a nice foreshadowing that the days of unlimited borrowing by governments–against future growth based on cheap energy–is coming to an end. Washington can print up dollars and fund these states for years, if it so chooses. But just as with the 70 million people in Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain, the 108 million people in these seven large states are probably facing even higher levels of unemployment as austerity measures finally slam into their cashless coffers, and reduce their ability to borrow

Thursday, February 4, 2010

The true story, carries more weight!

The Two Lists: A Former Pro-Choice Atheist Reflects on Sex, Abortion and Anger

Commentary by Jennifer Fulwiler

January 28, 2010 ( - Of all the things I remember about the Texas March for Life in Austin last January, the memory that stands out the most is the look on the faces of the counter-protesters who followed us along Congress Avenue and down to the capitol that frosty morning. When I glanced over to see the source of the epithets that were being screamed at us, I met the eyes of one young woman wearing a black bandana over the bottom half of her face. She happened to look over and meet my gaze, and in her eyes I saw one thing: hatred.

I was caught off guard when my gut response to her rage-filled glare was one of sympathy. In fact, I realized as she turned away to continue yelling angry pro-choice slogans that I knew the source of the rage behind her eyes and had even felt it recently.

Until a couple of years ago, I was militantly pro-choice. When I heard people make anti-abortion statements, it filled me with a white-hot anger that I could barely contain. Behind my views was a buried but unspoken sense that there was something inherently unfair about being a woman, and abortion was a key to maintaining any semblance of a level playing field in the world.

My peers and I were taught not that sex creates babies, but that unprotected sex creates babies. We absorbed through cultural osmosis the idea that every normal person will have sex at some point in his or her life, and that the sexual act, by default, has no significance outside the relationship between the two people involved. In this worldview, when unexpected pregnancies came up, it was seen as a sort of betrayal by the woman's body. My friends and I lamented the awful position every woman was in: Unexpected pregnancies were like lightning strikes, and when one of these unpredictable events did occur, there were no good options for dealing with them. Abortion wasn't ideal -- even we acknowledged that it was a violating procedure that was hard on a woman's body -- but what choice did anyone have? To not have the option of terminating surprise pregnancies when they came up out of nowhere would mean being a slave to one's biology.

My staunch support of these views did not soften until a few years ago, when a religious conversion after a life of atheism led me to the Catholic Church. I began researching the ancient Judeo-Christian understanding of human sexuality, in which the sexual act is seen as being inextricably entwined with its potential for creating new human life. The more I considered this point of view, the more I questioned my long-held views. In fact, I started to see the catastrophic mistake our society had made when we started believing that the life-giving potential of the sexual act could be safely forgotten about as long as people use contraception. It would be like saying that guns could be used as toys as long as long as there are blanks in the chamber. Teaching people to use something with tremendous power nonchalantly, as a casual plaything, had set women up for disaster.

The gravity of this error became clear to me when I came across research that Time magazine published in 2007, citing data from the Guttmacher Institute that showed the most common reasons women have abortions. It immediately struck me that none of the factors on the list -- not feeling capable of parenting, not being able to afford a baby, not being in a relationship stable enough to raise a child -- were conditions that we encourage women to consider before engaging in sexual activity.

It was then that I could finally articulate the source of the anger I'd felt all these years. In every society, there are two critical lists: acceptable conditions for having a baby, and acceptable conditions for having sex. From time immemorial, the one thing that almost every society had in common is that their two lists matched up. It was only with the widespread acceptance of contraception in the middle of the 20th century, creating an upheaval in the public psyche in which sex and babies no longer went hand-in-hand, that the two lists began to diverge. And now, in 21st-century America, they look something like this:

Conditions under which it is acceptable to have sex:
• If you're in a stable relationship
• If you feel emotionally ready
• If you're free of sexually transmitted diseases
• If you have access to contraception

Conditions under which it is acceptable to have a baby:
• If you can afford it
• If you've finished your education
• If you feel emotionally ready to parent a child
• If your partner would make a good parent
• If you're ready for all the lifestyle changes that would be involved with parenthood
As long as those two lists do not match, we will live in a culture where abortion is common and where women are at war with their own bodies.

Considering the disparity between the two lists made me begin to see the level of damage that contraception and the mentality it produces have done to women as individuals and as a group. I thought of the several friends whom I'd helped procure abortions, how each was scared and caught off guard, overwhelmed with a feeling of "I never signed up for a pregnancy," angry at a faceless enemy. They had followed all of society's rules, yet still ended up in a gut-wrenching position. We hated the anti-abortion zealots because we thought they tried to take away women's freedom; what we didn't understand is that women's freedom had already been taken, when society bought the lie that sex is primarily about bonding and pleasure, and that its life-giving potential is tangential and optional.

In an article published by the Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives, John A. Ross estimates that a woman using contraception with a 1 percent risk of failure has a 70 percent chance of experiencing an unwanted pregnancy over the course of 10 years. Guttmacher also reports that more than half of women seeking abortions were using a contraceptive method when they got pregnant. As soon as we as a society accepted contraception, a large-scale game of Russian roulette began, with women and their unexpected children as the players with the guns to their heads.

Austin's March for Life was this past Saturday; I wonder if the girl with the black bandana was there again this year. I wish I could offer to buy her a cup of coffee and tell her that I think she's right to sense that something deeply unfair is afoot in our society, and that nothing less than women's freedom is at stake.

(Note: This article reprinted with permission from