.

Rick Santorum seems to be taking the lead over Mitt Romney in the Republican primary race.

Quite a few are surprised.

To some, it makes a lot of sense:

• Santorum halted his campaign for two days to stay with his sick daughter.  That’s American values.

• Santorum’s wife quit professional life to stay home with the kids. Smart lady. Lots of Americans do that, or at least wish they could.

• Santorum has a demonstrated history of upholding conservative values, values resembling Tea Party values.  He was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. Tea Party will like that.

• Santorum is a dedicated family man, the model of a good husband and good father.

• Santorum’s faith is lived out in his politics.   Americans are religious; 80% are Christian, 80% say that prayer is important to their daily lives , and  65% support Prayer in Public Schools.

• Santorum is the only candidate who has avoided mud-slinging tactics in his campaign.  America does not like mud-slinging.

• Santorum is a gentleman.  Glen Beck has called him the next George Washington.

• Santorum has finally produced a “mud-slinging” ad; it doesn’t sling mud, except literally, and it’s funny.  America likes funny.

.

Rick Santorum’s latest funny, funny ad:

.

.

One more Santorum ad:

.

.

Santorum is what America admires

Americans are not Godless, promiscuous, radical, socialist, politically-correct, spineless people, as the radicals who dominate the media would like to make us think. We are not clones of what Hollywood has flooded movies and media with.

Americans are actually religious, faithful, conservative, democratic, and are courageous enough to resist being steered by radicals.  Remember, 80% of Americans say that prayer is important to their daily lives.  Is it surprising that Americans might choose a Godly man? Or that God might help him?

Still surprised at Rick Santorum’s recent success?

.

Background

The Obama administration recently attempted to establish free sterilization, contraception and abortifacients as a “right” which transcends First Amendment rights of freedom of religion.  This attempt was challenged by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Background described at A Tale of Two Presidents; President Obama vs. President of the USCCB, Archbishop Cardinal-elect Timothy Dolan.
Obama’s move was particularly shocking, since he had previously and vehemently promised non-inclusion of abortion in ObamaCare.  Obama’s present inclusion of abortifacient drugs in ObamaCare, and his insistence on forcing Catholics to pay for them, makes it appear that Obama has no problem with falsification/outright lying.

Baracchio and Timothy Cricket. In the popular children's tale of Pinocchio, Pinocchio fell in with a bad crowd of pleasure-seeking boys. This resulted in their turning into donkeys who would be enslaved by a coachman. Pinocchio's conscience, represented by Jiminy Cricket (played here by Archbishop Timothy Dolan) saves Pinocchio from his bad judgement, and the tale ends happily.

.

Obama’s Latest Move

Now President Obama, without consultation with the US Bishops, has unilaterally announced a “solution” to the conflict between religious and sexual “rights.”

.

Obama: Americans – Including Catholics – Will Still Be Forced to Buy Coverage for Sterilization, Contraception, Abortifacients – CNS News, 2-10-12
Video of Obama’s 6 minute  Statement on Contraceptive Health Care Rule – C-Span – 2-10-12
Obama’s Act of Tyranny – CNS News, 2-10-12

.

.

Bishops Respond

The Catholic Bishops have pronounced Obama’s “solution” unacceptable.

Catholic Bishops: Obama’s Solution ‘Is Unacceptable’ CNS News, 2-11-12
Entire Cathlolic Bishops Statement – USCCB 2-10-12

Obama’s proposal

Obama’s “solution” involves side-stepping direct payment for these population-control procedures by Churches, while still requiring Church organizations to provide these services indirectly, and still requiring Catholics and other Christians with religious objections to the procedueres to pay for the procedures indirectly.  Essentially, all insurance companies in the U.S. would be required to cover the population-control procedures, and thus all Americans would be required to pay for the procedures, regardless of religious objection, through the insurance policies that citizens must purchase as required by ObamaCare. Escape from payment for morning-after pills and for sterilization of minorities would not be possible without civil disobedience under the currently proposed Obama administration rules.

Will Americans Go For This?

America’s values are still quite conservative; 80% of Americans are religious, 70% are Christian, 2/3 oppose federal funding of abortion and 2/3 favor abstinence before marriage. Obama’s attempts to establish these free sexual services thus represents quite a governmental imposition of unwanted values.  The government has essentially declared that all citizens have the right to unlimited promiscuous activity with a guaranteed freedom from consequences, paid for by the government (by all of us).

What the Contraception Mandate (actually Population Control Mandate) Would Mean

The majority will be forced to pay for the injudicious sexual behavior of a minority, without limits.
This does not differ significantly from government encouragement of unlimited gluttony, with guaranteed free liposuction for all.
Or government encouragement of theft, with guaranteed freedom from prosecution for thieves.

The Obama administration has promoted payment for reckless human sexuality to a status of higher importance than providing aspirin to heart patients or insulin to diabetics.  Heart patients and diabetics do not get free medication and free surgery without co-pay.
Pregnancy, a normal human condition which is essential to the propagation of the human race, has been promoted to disease status, a disease that trumps all other human diseases, for which free medication and free surgery are not provided.

The Obama administration’s obvious prioritization of population control over freedom of religion, over majority opinion, over political expediency, and over fiscal responsibility, was discussed in detail in Abortion – A Much Bigger Deal Than You Think. The motivation for such extreme population control measures cannot be explained by overpopulation concerns; these do not exist in the United States.   If anything, we are short of workers and of taxpayers at the present time.  Population control is usually a mark of political tyranny, and has already progressed in the United States to a level that few have noticed and few would find credible.  Abortion is by far, the leading cause of death in the United States today, and the black population of America is suffering from it way more than the rest of us. Abortion – A Much Bigger Deal Than You Think

The Future

Obama is pushing an agenda that makes no sense to anyone who is grounded in reality.
The development of this drama will affect the future prosperity of the United States radically.

Let us hope, fast, and pray that Barachhio listens to Timothy Cricket and our story has a happy ending.  Would hate to turn into enslaved donkies, all of us!

Related Coverage:

TV Network Started by Cloistered Nun Sues Sebelius – CNS News, 2-9-11

A Tale of Two Presidents: Timothy & Barak

and

What’s Sneaking in Under the Radar?

and

Boy, Did Bart Stupak Get Duped!

The media has been brimming with reports on the conflict between President Barak Obama and the President of the USCCB (United States Council of Catholic Bishops), Archbishop Cardinal-elect Timothy Dolan.   The issue involves recent ObamaCare regulations that threaten first amendment rights of Catholics, and of numerous other religious groups.

• The main players are imposing.
• Coverage is sensational.
• The issues are important:

Freedom of religion

Redefinition of rights and of essentials

The players are imposing

President Obama’s administration announced in August 2011 that the now-mandatory ObamaCare would contain regulations requiring the provision of free birth-control/abortifacient drug services by all employers.

The President of the USCCB, Archbishop Dolan, objected in September 2011, calling the regulation an “unprecedented attack on religious freedom” and urging that it be rescinded.  Catholic institutions could not be forced to provide morning-after pills and contraceptives to their employees.  This would constitute a violation of conscience.  For the first time in history, the USCCB formed an Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, to respond to six specific attacks on religious freedom in the United States since June 2011. 

Darn Tootin'

On October 4^th, 2011, President Obama, ignoring the objections of the Catholic Bishops, bragged at a DNC fundraiser about the inclusion of contraception in ObamaCare regulations, quipping “Darn tooting!,”  a slang expression for “damn right,” derived from a 1928 Laurel & Hardy silent comedy short, You’re Darn Tootin’.

The President of the USCCB Dolan met with President Obama in November 2011, explaining to Obama the Catholic Church’s objections to the regulation.

On January 20, 2012, it became clear that the Obama administration was not planning to satisfy the Catholic Bishops’ concerns.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the regulations would go forward.  Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations would have to comply by August 1, 2013.  The appeal by Catholic Bishops for a religious exemption was denied.

The USCCB made the next move: mobilizing Catholics to pressure their elected representatives to restore 1^st amendment rights to Catholics.  An appeal went out February 5^th, 2012 to all Catholics in the United States, to fast, to pray and to approach their legislators opposing this violation of religious freedom.  Catholic parishes in the U.S. heard letters from their Bishop on February 5^th.

The USCCB website summarized the concerns of the Bishops of the United States and suggested courses of action for interested citizens (including non-Catholics)  .  The site has been swamped with response, often requiring more than one attempt to access the site.

Locally, Madison’s Cathedral Parish’s Rector Monsignor Holmes explained the background for the religious freedom violation.  Cllick here for mp3 of Msgr. Holmes’ talk.

Bishop Morlino of Madison appealed to Catholics to act in protection of our religious freedoms – click here for Bishop Morlino’s letter to all Diocese of Madison Catholics.

In response to the USCCB action, the White House published a set of false and misleading claims about the ObamaCare regulation on the White House blog, attempting to deny the Bishops’ claims (Feb 2, 2012).

An example of misleading White House claims:
“No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception.”
However, the truth misrepresented by the White House is that women who have ethical objections to contraception will be forced to pay for contraception use by others through their higher premiums, since contraception is mandated to be free of charge.  Even Tylenol does not enjoy this special status.

The USCCB issued a response to the White House blog to set the record straight on Feb 4, 2012, containing clarifications on all White House misleading claims.

This Affects a Lot More Than Just Catholics

Religion in America

Cardinal-elect Dolan is not just representing Catholics (25% of America) in this serious matter; he is representing all religious Americans (80%), as well as all who wish to maintain Judeo-Christian moral values (numerous supporters of Judeo-Christian values are not religious people, but support the common sense embodied by the Ten Commandments).

The Catholic Church is in a unique position to lead this battle, because the Catholic Church has a centralized organization and numerous members.  They are uniquely situated to demand justice for religious America (80% of us).  Few other religions have the centralized structure to be able to do this.

People of all faiths should join in this call to prayer, fasting and civic action.

The coverage is sensational

The headlines have been sensational.
Some articles:

• Top U.S. Catholic Bishop: ‘Administration is on Wrong Side of the Constitution Again’ – CNS News  1-23-12
• ObamaCare and Religious Freedom – Wall Street Journal  1-25-12
• Conscience Protection – USCCB website
• Stand Up For Religious Liberty and Rights of Conscience – Madison Catholic Herald 1-26-12
• Obama Plays His Catholic Allies for Fools – Washington Post  1-30-12
• Bishop: Obama Administration is Telling Catholics ‘To Hell With You’ – CNS news  1-30-12
• Catholic Church vs Obama in Election Year Showdown –ABC   1-30-12
• Catholics Hear Anti-Obama Letter in Church – CBS  – 1-30-12 
• Catholics: Hold Obama Accountable for Conscience Violations -LifeNews.com 1-30-12
• Obama Sandbags the Archbishop – Crisis Magazine –1-31-12
• The First Amendment and ObamaCare – Redstate.com    1-31-12
• Catholic Bishops Reject Obama’s Surrender Terms – Investors.com   2-1-12
• Battle Brews Between Catholic Church and Obama Administration – News9.com   2-1-12
• Pelosi Vows to Stand With Obama Against Catholic Church – CNS news   Feb 2, 2012
  

  Obama and Pelosi at National Prayer Breakfast, February 2, 2012

• Obama Ruling Requires Catholic Institutions to Violate Church Teaching – Washington Post 2-2-12
• Catholic Church’s Unfair Attack Against Obama – Boston Globe Editorial  2-2-12
• President Obama vs the Catholic Church – FoxNews -  2/2/12
• Rubio Introduces Bill to Protect Church Organizations Against Obama’s Mandate – 2-3-12
• USCCB: White House Misrepresents its Own Contraceptive Mandate – 2-4-12
• Will the HHS Contraception Mandate Derail Obama’s Chance of Re-Election? National Catholic Register 2-5-12
• Catholic outcry over Obama administration’s birth control decision could be factor in presidential race – Fox News 2-7-12
• Weekly Standard: ObamaCare vs. the Catholics – NPR  2-7-12
• Memo to Obama: You’ve Got a Problem – CatholicVote.org. 2-7-12
• Military Chaplains Told Not to Read Criticism of Contraceptive Mandate in Mass -Fox News 2-7-12

The issues are important:

Freedom of religion;
Conscience Violation

Conscience

The main issue involved here is crucial:  Can a government require an individual to act contrary to their conscience?

Could the Obama administration require Jewish organizations to serve pork if the Secretary of Health and Human Services decided that pork was an important part of a healthy diet?

Could Health and Human Services require nuns to wear bikinis, if the they decided that sunshine was essential to one’s health?

These analogies sound outrageous; but requiring a religious Christian, Muslim, or Jew to provide morning-after pills to others, and thereby to promote both promiscuity and the killing of pre-born human beings, is every bit as outrageous as forcing Jews to serve pork or forcing nuns to wear bikinis.

The next step in this chilling drama would be to require all medical personnel to participate in abortions, regardless of religious belief.  Then American doctors and nurses who are religious (80% of them) would be punished by law or would lose their jobs for refusing to participate in abortions, just as Catholic institutions will be penalized or will be closed down if they refuse to provide morning-after pills to employees of Catholic hospitals, schools and charities.

Catholic Charities in Boston have already been forced to end their adoption services because of their inability to place children with gay couples, as required state law.

The First Amendment

The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government of the United States can make no law compelling Catholic citizens to do what they consider to be immoral.  It is hard to imagine how President Obama hoped to get around this.

Yet the White House stated on Jan 31, 2011 that there is “no Constitutional Rights issue” in forcing Catholics to act against their faith.   The White House went even further on Feb 6, 2012 ,  stating that women “deserve” to have the Catholic Church buy them sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients.

Re-Defining Rights and Essentials

In the rush to cover the primary issue, religious freedom, one additional issue seems to be neglected by the press – it is important to point out that the Obama Administration has embarked on categorizing free birth control/abortion as “medically necessary to ensure women’s health and well-being,” as an essential, and as a “right.”  The National Institute of Medicine produced a report July 19, 2012, suggesting the expansion of “clinical preventative services” for women in ObamaCare to include such services.

Morning After Pill ... now "essential?"

How on earth did the morning-after pill get promoted to such a degree of indispensability as to be guaranteed to be available and to be free?

Government guarantees few free commodities; most commodities guaranteed by government are intangible and do not involve a product:  life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  They are freedoms to do something, not freedoms that entitle citizens to a product.

In the United States, citizens are not even entitled to basics such as food, shelter or clothing, unless they work for them. Unemployment benefits and old age pensions are not available to those who have not worked.  Unemployment benefits also run out after a period of time.  The “work” which qualifies a citizen for receiving these “benefits” is quite specific; housewives, for example, cannot collect unemployment.  Note also, that unemployment and old age pensions are called “benefits;” they are not called “rights.”

Health plans also do not guarantee patients many essentials.  They never cover “over-the-counter” drugs like aspirin or Tylenol, and they require co-pays for essential drugs like insulin, without which some patients would die.

The Morning-After Pill = Essential?

Socrates drinking hemlock

So HOW ON EARTH did the morning-after pill get promoted to the status of something that all must receive FREE, and that Catholics, who disagree with morality of the medication, MUST pay for and must provide the morning-after pill for others?  What is the next step, universally available free hemlock, and requiring Churches to dispense it?

One More Danger

In addition to conscience violation, there is another inherent danger in government-guaranteed free tangible commodities like morning after pills for all.  The danger lies in paying for the commodities.

Taxing the rich at a rate of 100% (yes, 100%, which would leave them with an income of zero) would not generate enough money to pay our national deficit and our national debt in the United States. See Taxing the Rich.   We simply do not have enough rich citizens in the United States to cover all the things the present administration wants to provide.  We cannot even pay our present bills, so how can we add morning-after pills to the list of free items/services available to everyone?

Even if we had sufficient wealth to pay for the free items, how would we justify guaranteeing a right to the morning-after pill before we guarantee a right to aspirin, insulin, food, shelter or clothing?

Has the Obama Administration has gone mad?

Is There a Hidden Agenda?

Has the Obama Administration has gone mad?

Or, perhaps, does the Obama Administration have a hidden agenda?

One could speculate whether the Obama Administration floated an obvious violation of the First Amendment in order to obscure the redefinition of rights and essentials.   As we all scramble to defend the First Amendment religious rights, Obama has succeeded in sneaking abortion into ObamaCare, and in establishing abortion as a right and as an essential.

“Special” Tactics Being Used?

President Obama, along with numerous other Democrats like Hillary Clinton, has often been accused of being a follower of Saul

Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" Dedicated to Lucifer

Alinsky, a radical activist of the 1960’s who developed tactics for advancing a radical agenda against the wishes of an American majority.  Alinsky developed a way to outsmart democracy and to railroad radical agenda in “under the radar. “  The use of intentional scandals for distraction, together with the use of lies and dirty tactics to advance one’s purpose, are all part of the Alinsky tactics that Obama has been accused of using.  These tactics were used by Democrats and unions in Madison last year. Newt Gingrich has recently been accusing Obama of using Alinsky tactics.  Just last week, the White House press secretary dodged a question about whether President Obama was deeply influenced by Saul Alinsky.

It is quite likely that President Obama has used religious freedom violations to distract attention from the abortion agenda that is being inserted into ObamaCare regulations.

Blatant Lies

Remember Bart Stupak?  The Pro-Life Democrat from Michigan who opposed the inclusion of abortion in ObamaCare?  The guy who caved at the last minute and allowed ObamaCare to go through?  He supposedly caved because Obama promised to sign an Executive Order that purported to bar federal funding of abortion through ObamaCare.

What ever happened to that promise? Now ObamaCare not only includes abortion coverage, but will require Catholics to pay for and provide abortifacients!

Remember Obama promising that there would be no abortion in ObamaCare?  In the YouTube video, President Obama reverses his position totally and repeatedly, depending on his audience.  As though unaware that he is filmed and that the films could be compared.  A President who has an iPhone should be aware of the potential for comparison of his speeches on YouTube.  Now, as it turns out, abortion is more than covered in ObamaCare.   All of Obama’s previous promises and Executive Orders were lies.  This man does not seem to feel bound by his word or by telling the truth.

Is the Obama Philosophy internally consistent?

Already the Obama administration has introduced a very dangerous and negative perspective into our national thinking: we will not let the bottom half of Americans, who don’t pay taxes, to be “taken advantage of” by the top half of Americans, who “don’t pay their fair share.”  Think about that; the lack of logic is astounding.  If the top half of Americans are supporting not only themselves but also the bottom half of Americans, how is it that they can be accused of “not paying their fair share?”  Obama’s contradictions are not limited to his blatant lies, but these contradictions pervade his entire philosophy.

Even those collecting “benefits” must realize that it would be more enjoyable for them to have an income much larger than government-provided “benefits.”  If they vote for a “benefit” society, the “half” of America paying the bills will continue to shrink.  Ergo, the benefits will shrink.  If the benefit-ees ever did break out into becoming benefit-ers, they would be taxed to death, so why bother?  This is the recipe for spiraling into depression – both economic and mental.

Violation of the Constitution

The Obama administration, in its efforts to force the top half of Americans to subsidize the bottom half of Americans and to redistribute the wealth, is recklessly violating the Constitution of the United States.  The number of violations is growing by the day, as appointed judges reverse the voice of democracy, and as new executive powers are invented.

The recent violations of freedom of religion and of conscience are not the only violations occurring.  Numerous additional items are being railroaded in “under the radar,” even as this latest Conscience Protection scandal goes on.

• Obama has just appointed a new chief of staff , who is an expert on executive powers, and who is expected to help Obama advance his agenda without congressional approval.
• Obama is continuing to use recess appointments to circumvent the need for congressional approval of his appointees.
• The constitutionality of Obama’s use of Czars has also been questioned.  NewsMax  1-31-12

The Forgotten Man

As the Obama administration tramples religious rights, property rights, and Constitutional checks and balances, the citizens of the United States, the voters, are forgotten.

The majority who want fiscal responsibility are forgotten.
The majority who oppose federal funding of abortion are forgotten.
The majority who are religious (80%) are forgotten.
The majority who define marriage as one man and one woman are forgotten.
The majority of America has become the Forgotten Man.

The Forgotten Man - McNaughton

This dilemma is expressed in an art piece, The Forgotten Man.  The painter expresses shock at the direction our country is heading.  It shows a despondent  “common man” sitting on a bench, and behind him are all the previous Presidents of the United States.  The Constitution and the dollar, ripped and wrinkled, are strewn on the ground, one piece lying firmly under Barack Obama’s foot.  James Madison stoops, gesturing with alarm at the Constitution under Barak Obama’s foot.  George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan look pleadingly at Barak Obama, sympathetically indicating toward the depressed common man.  Barak’s back is turned, his arms are defiantly crossed.  He looks unmoved.

This piece of art can be viewed at the artist’s website, complete with explanations of each figure scrolled over.

.

President Obama Has  Sold Us Out:

The Obama administration’s demand for free access to unlimited sexual expression unfettered by any consequences is about as realistic and possible as a demand for free access to unlimited gluttony, accompanied by free unlimited liposuction at the expense of those who do not participate in the excess.   Or a demand for free access to unlimited money, with immunity from prosecution for theft.

What ever gave people the idea that sexuality is not subject to moderation, responsibility  and common sense, as are all our other appetites and capabilities?

Opponents of religious values should realize that they are the extremists, that the majority of Americans (80%) are religious, 2/3 support abstinence before marriage, and 2/3 oppose federal funding of abortion.

Solution 2012:

Join the Catholics:
Fast
Pray
Become politically active
Vote

Save America

.

Newsflash:

Santorum is Only GOP Candidate Beating Obama, Rasmussen Daily Poll Finds – CNS News 2-6-12

Coming soon…

or

Taking Life and Death Out of the Hands of Providence and Placing them into the Hands of Human Beings Paves the Way for Tyranny

or

Why Democrats Should Rethink Abortion

Background

January 22, 2012 marked 39 years since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion in the United States (1973).

For 39 years, we have been terminating pregnancies clandestinely, most of us giving little thought to the ethics, economic implications, medical dangers, psychological effects, or any other aspect of abortion.

Media does not discuss abortion.  Friends and relatives rarely mention abortion.  Yet one third of all children conceived since 1973 in the US (54 million of them) have been aborted.  That means that 15% of our population is missing, and that one out of every 7 people is missing.  And, if you consider that they would also have had  some children, the number missing is even greater.  Many of us may be missing brothers and sisters about whom we know nothing.  Scores of women we know have aborted children, and most of us know nothing about it.

Purpose

The present article reviews the enormity of abortion, its effects on our entire society, and the exploitation of whole populations by modern politicians, who appear to be motivated by the same quest for power and gain as famous historical tyrants.

Questions

The central questions:

Is abortion right or wrong?
Is abortion a big deal?
How much is 52 million?
Do most Americans favor abortion?
Are women who have had abortions better off?
Why do most women avoid discussing their abortions?
Is a fetus a dispensable blob of tissue (see photo above), or is it a human being with a right to life guaranteed by the US Constitution?
Have we done anything to imbalance our society and our economy with all of this abortion?
What are the major motivations of abortion proponents?

.

Ethical Controversy- Is Abortion Right or Wrong?

The most important controversy over abortion centers on ethics.  Conservatives maintain that abortion involves the murder of a human being, and that murder of inconvenient humans is not to be tolerated by our society.  Liberals view abortion as a more benign event – just a convenience.

If abortion were to constitute murder, then even one abortion would be horrifying and revolting.  Yet little effort has been made during the past 39 years to determine whether abortion constitutes murder or not.  Religious leaders (ethical experts) are not consulted.  The American population (70% Christian, 80% religious) has never been consulted; there are no elections regarding abortion. Government has made no attempt to determine whether a fetus is a dispensable blob of tissue, or a human being with a right to life guaranteed by the US Constitution.

A handful of judges made a decision in 1973 permitting abortion, and that decision has stood.  Now, again, President Obama’s administration has gone on a national and global campaign to spread “reproductive rights,” which include abortion, using federal subsidies. There has been no effort to seek ethical expert advice, and no effort to seek input from the American public. The abortion agenda has now been included in Obama Care despite Obama’s promises that it would not be, and abortion is being pushed globally at the United Nations by Hillary Clinton, who has even lied at the United Nations misrepresenting the Catholic Church’s position on gender issues to gain support for global “reproductive rights” issues, which include abortion.

Is Abortion a Big Deal? Is it Really such a Big Killer?

If conservatives are right, and abortion truly constitutes the murder of a helpless human being, how does U.S. abortion compare with other human atrocities/casualties historically?  The comparison does not look good.  We have killed 130 times more people than the US lost in World War II casualties, 9 times more people than Jews lost in the Holocaust, 4 times more people than Hitler is responsible for killing, 3 times more people than Josef Stalin is accused of killing, and twice as many as were lost in the Bubonic Plague.  In fact, the number of our own children whom we have killed in the US since Roe v. Wade is equal to the sum of all the above-mentioned mass killings.

Numbers – How much is 54 million?

Other issues, such as the number of missing human beings, should be of interest to both sides of the abortion question.  The termination of large numbers of human lives has an effect on population, on the age, gender and racial composition of society, and on the economy.  The more abortions performed, the greater the effect.

How many abortions occur in the US each year, and how do those numbers compare with other events which impact our human population?

The annual number of abortions in the United States is 1.4 million.  Actually, abortion is the single highest annual cause of death in the United States by far.  No other event, criminal, accidental or medical, is responsible for as many deaths as abortion. You have to lump most medical causes of death together, including the top 12 killers (Heart disease, Cancer, Respiratory Disease, Stroke, Alzheimers, Diabetes, Influenza/Pneumonia and others), to get a number in the same ballpark as abortion; 1.8 million annual deaths from the top 12 diseases, compared with 1.4 million annual deaths by abortion. But without lumping together of diseases, abortion is WAY the biggest killer.

All other causes of death are dwarfed by abortion.  Abortion kills 14 times as many people as accidents, 28 times as many people as firearms, 47 times as many as suicide, 47 times as many as auto accidents, 47 times as many as infant mortality,  70 times as many as AIDS, and 70 times as many as homicide.

The numbers are staggering.  About 50% of American deaths each year are due to adult/old age illness, compared with 37%  due to abortion, 3% to accidents, 1% each to firearms, suicide, auto accidents, infant mortality, and less than 1% each to AIDS and homicide.

Why is this not being reported by the media?
What effect will this have on our future?

The selective elimination of 15% of a population has profound effects on a society; effects which should concern even those who do not consider abortion as murder.

The elimination of human beings poses numerous economic, legal and ethical challenges which our society is now beginning to face.

The media has been virtually silent on this very crucial question.
Is this because of “political correctness?”

Effect of Abortion on Black Population

Abortion leads to the disruption of the racial composition of our population; far more black children have been aborted than white.  This exposes abortion advocates to accusations of bigotry and of genocide.  Whether it is intentional or not, abortion has eliminated disproportionately large numbers of black babies, effectively reducing the black population of the United States.  Black babies are five times more likely to be aborted than white babies, according to data from the US Center for Disease Control.  Abortion advocates, including our black President, ought to be concerned about this.

Planned Parenthood, contrary to it’s title, does little planning of parenthood, but instead has become the largest abortion provider in the United States, with 820 clinics and a $1 billion budget.  Their main activity and main source of revenue is abortion, and directors of Planned Parenthood Clinics have been known to resign once they figured out the real agenda at Planned Parenthood; abortion.

Margaret Sanger speaks to KKK women

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist who openly advocated the reduction of black and poor populations through birth control.  Sanger believed that lighter-skinned races were superior to darker-skinned races. Now, the organization founded by Margaret Sanger has become the largest abortion provider in the US.  Coincidence?  Or serious accusation?

“I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”
-Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366

The founder of Planned Parenthood actually had the reduction of black and poor populations in mind; can this motivation still be assigned to those of her successors who push the abortion agenda so zealously today?

SINCE ROE V. WADE, THE BLACK POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN REDUCED BY OVER 25 PERCENT.

Effect of Abortion on Gender distribution

There is already evidence from the 2000 census that the combination of prenatal testing and abortion is being used for sex selection in the United States. In China, the problem is much larger, and China is already facing the obvious problems of sex-ratio imbalance, which has numerous societal repercussions, including criminal and economic effects.  We could be headed in that direction, too.  What kind of nation would selectively kill women?  Don’t women’s rights begin in the womb?

Effect of Abortion on Economy

Abortion also has drastic effects on the age balance and earning potential of a population.

.

Disruption of the age balance of a population leads to numerous economic challenges.

Abortion reduces the proportion of young people in a society.  Some, like Nancy Pelosi, view young people as a burden and expense on society, and believe that abortion will save money; however this is a very shortsighted view, since young people are also those who grow up to work, to produce and to shoulder responsibility in a society, responsibility from which elders have retired.  If you eliminate those who work and pay the bills, society is in trouble.  As the number of young people shrinks and the number of old people grows (see dynamic graph above), it becomes more and more impossible to care for elders effectively.

Shrinking numbers of (aborted) young workers, increasing numbers of working women, and the escalating cost of professional elder care, have already made the cost of elder care staggering. Professional care of elders is much more costly than elder care by families at home.

The median American household income ($50,000) cannot begin to support the average cost of a nursing home ($70,000) for each elder, when a society becomes imbalanced by age.  This is another bubble on the verge of bursting; a society that is not replenished through new births is not likely to deal well with these new issues.

Pope John Paul II’s statement “A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope” becomes more than an ethical/moral pronouncement; it becomes an economic prediction as well.   Ironically, many of the religious standards recently discarded by secular leaders turn out to be wise and prudent standards.  When we toy with new experimental standards for society, we run into unforeseen problems.  Why is it not apparent to skeptics that there IS a God after all, a wise and loving God, who actually DID take the trouble to give us some rules for our own protection?  The more we depart from traditional Judeo-Christian rules, the deeper the trouble we seem to encounter.

Who Supports Abortion?  Democrats?

Abortion was NOT associated with one political party platform for quite a while after its legalization in 1973.  Many leading Democrats opposed abortion at first.  The names will surprise you: Senate majority leader Harry Reid opposed abortion as recently as 1999.  Joe Biden, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy used to oppose abortion, too.

Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton

“Legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life.”
– Ted Kennedy

At first, from 1976 to 1984 the Democratic Party platform actually included language that hedged on abortion.  The party started wavering on abortion by 1988, and by 1992 the leadership had embraced abortion thoroughly enough to ban pro-life speakers from their conventions.  The party membership was not yet aware of these decisions; the leadership feared that pro-life Democrats (61% of whom were unaware of their party’s platform on abortion) would leave if they found out (First Things).

And eventually, leave they did.  First Things (Joe Carter) reports that when Democratic voters realized what was happening, a “seismic shift” occurred.  The Democratic Party lost its dominance over the legislature for the first time in 40 years, and the Democrats lost control of both House and Senate for 12 years.

What does America think about abortion?

Most Americans favor the banning or limitation of abortion, yet there is little discussion of this question by the media.

• Much of America opposes abortion altogether (the split between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” hovers around the 50/50% mark; 61% say that abortion should be legal under few or no circumstances; 51% say abortion is “morally wrong; 39% say abortion is morally acceptable) . - Gallup Poll; Womens Rights and Abortion.
• Even more Americans oppose federal funding of abortion. (67% oppose federal funding of abortion)
• Gallup has not conducted a poll on FORCING U.S. religious institutions to provide abortion as the Obama administration is now attempting to do, but one could predict the results of such a poll.  If 67% of Americans oppose federal funding of abortion (above), the number of Americans opposing forcing religious institutions to provide abortion would likely be greater than 67%.

Are Women Who Have Had Abortions Better Off?

Despite the fact that a long string of radical feminists (including Nancy Pelosi) continue to maintain that children are burdensome and that women benefit from liberation from bearing children, all evidence seems to point to the contrary.  Women who abort their children become susceptible to a wide variety of medical and psychological disorders; medical complications in 10% of women, psychological disorders, increased future incidence of miscarriage and breast cancer, and even effects on the woman’s other children.

This is not surprising to those who understand abortion to be murder.  If a woman has murdered a family member, it is not surprising that the natural inborn mechanisms of guilt and regret are set in motion, and begin to cripple her emotional/psychological well-being.

Few women feel liberated by their abortions.  This is probably responsible for the fact that few women discuss their abortions.  It is innately obvious to most of us that abortion is wrong, just as other moral principles, like the need for prohibition of stealing and of marital infidelity are innately obvious to most people.

The biggest loss never mentioned by abortion advocates is the permanents loss of one’s own child; children are what most people value more than anything else later in life.  The small inconvenience of raising children for a decade or two is more than compensated by the joy of family for decades to come.

Democrats Today

Since 1992, the Democratic Party has continued to support unfettered access to abortion, even as it becomes an overwhelming political liability (Joe Carter, First Things).  Recently, the Obama administration and the Department of Health and Human Services have gone even further.  Not only are they willing to fund abortion nationally and globally with federal funds, but now they have advanced policies that violate the U.S. Constitution by requiring Catholic institutions (to Catholics, abortion is murder) to provide abortifacient drugs (as well as sterilization and contraceptives) to all their employees.  The Obama administration is now trying to restrict the right of Catholic citizens and institutions to freely exercise their religion as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution (click photo to view video at USCCB website):

President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan

The conscience rights of at least 25% of America will be violated; probably closer to 70%, including other religious groups.  It almost appears as though the Obama administration and the Department of Health and Human Services are trying to eradicate religion in a nation which is 80% religious and 70% Christian.  This topic is deserving of a separate article, which will appear following this one.

Why Do Democrats Push Abortion if America Doesn’t Want Abortion?
Don’t Democrats Want Votes?

The radical liberal push not only to legalize abortion, but to declare FREE abortion to be an internationally guaranteed right, has become so strong that moral/ethical/religious leaders and scholars have seen the need to create a United Nations “No Right to Abortion” declaration,  the San Jose Articles. This new United Nations Expert Document reaffirms that there exists no right to abortion in international law.  The San Jose Articles are signed by an number of legal, public policy, and medical experts from numerous countries.

Why is abortion, originally touted as a convenience, then promoted to a “necessity,” and now labeled as a “reproductive right,” being pushed so hard?  Particularly when the American public is not in consensus?

What Abortion Really Represents

How is it that abortion has become more essential than conveniences and necessities like milk or aspirin (for which we have to pay), and has become elevated to the status of a “right” such as those guaranteed to us by the Declaration of Independence and which include “Life (ironically), Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness“?

Apparently, our present government even considers free abortion to be a more fundamental human need than food, housing or heat. This is not consistent with the public rationale for abortion; the claim that abortion is beneficial to women.  If that were so, the majority of women would not be against it.  There is something bigger at stake here, which most rank-and-file liberals (who are not extreme radicals) do not realize.

Abortion is NOT about women’s “rights,” nor about “reproductive rights.” The real motive behind the radical push for free international abortion must be rooted in something that interests politicians even more than your votes interest them: power, money and control.

Abortion provides governments with the ability to control the size and composition of their own population, and to control the populations of other nations. It is an effective tool for weakening competitor nations, as well as weakening competitor groups within a nation.  We give aid to African nations, for example, only on condition that they adopt universal “reproductive rights;” rights which will reduce their population, their work force, and their economic status.  This is what Barak Obama, Kathleen Sebelius and Hillary Clinton are pushing.

Abortion is a very big deal.
Democrats could rethink abortion.

Abortion is a very big deal. And, according to Vice President Joe Biden, so is ObamaCare, the primary vehicle for spreading abortion further in the United States:

“This is a big [expletive] deal!”
- Vice President Joe Biden to President Obama, upon the signing of ObamaCare.

Abortion is not about women’s rights, nor is it about reproductive rights.  It’s actually about power, money and control.  In the hands of power-mongers, abortion is a tool as effective as war and genocide.

Abortion does not benefit women, it hurts them.
Abortion does not benefit minorities, it hurts them.
Abortion does not benefit economy, it hurts the  economy.
Abortion was never chosen by the American people; there was never a vote.

Democrats should rethink their party’s position on abortion.  Abortion has taken on a prominent role in the 2012 election, and Democrats are likely to suffer.

It is time to recognize that the Author of the Judeo-Christian  religious  principles on which our legal system is based (including the principles which forbid abortion) was very wise.

Taking life and death out of the hands of Providence and placing them into the hands of human beings just paves the way for tyranny.

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

Syte’s summary:

• Scientists are split on global warming; there is no agreement on whether it is occurring or not.
• Skeptics of global warming include an Obama-supporting Nobel prize winning physicist, editors of climate research journals, and numerous very prestigious and acclaimed scientists.
  
• There has been no evidence of “global warming” for over 10 years now.
• CO2 is not a pollutant.
• Alarmism is of great benefit to many politicians.
• Many young scientists doubt global-warming, but are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs.

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry… In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

At the conclusion of National vocation awareness week 2012, a word of thanks to all Diocese of Madison, WI, priests, seminarians, religious, to the Vocations office and to the Madison Serra Club, for their sacrificial service which makes it possible for the Catholic Church to carry on it’s mission in our diocese. (Click image to enlarge)

Thanks to the Madison Catholic Herald and to Chris Reitz for the article.

Encourage a young person to consider a religious vocation today. Just say “You would make a wonderful priest/sister; have you ever thought about it?”  Join the Serra Club, a group which supports vocations, yourself.  Any Catholic can join. I’m a new member, very much enjoying the opportunity to be a part of supporting our Church and meeting other people who feel the same way.

]]> http://sytereitz.com/2012/01/in-support-of-the-catholic-priesthood-or-we-love-our-priests/feed/ 0 http://sytereitz.com/2012/01/happy-new-year/ http://sytereitz.com/2012/01/happy-new-year/#comments Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:59:16 +0000 syte http://sytereitz.com/?p=1837

Wishing everyone a very happy and blessed new year!

The best way to end one year and start another is…

.

WFA Nativity Scene at Wisconsin State Capitol

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has done it again: in response to a table-top nativity scene being displayed in Wisconsin’s Capitol building rotunda by Wisconsin Family Action (WFA), FFRF has erected their own primitive contraption, featuring a pink-clad girl baby “Jesus,” a Botticelli Venus “blessed mother” declaring “it’s a girl,” and cardboard cut-outs of various historical atheists with speech bubbles proclaiming the folly of religion.  They failed to realize the irony represented by this silly display – a dimensionless cartoon that makes a statement about their philosophy as well.  There is not much substance in a  philosophy that rests primarily on (aggressive) negation of the beliefs of others.

FFRF's mockery of the Nativity - interesting how FFRF invokes one of the 10 Commandments to protect their silly display!

We all know Dr. Seuss’ story How the Grinch Stole Christmas… much like the Grinch, FFRF atheists think that just because they cannot participate in the joy of Christmas, they should try to destroy it for all of us too.

But the power of the newborn King far surpasses the laughable efforts of a few spiteful atheists.

Maybe someday they’ll puzzle ’till their puzzlers are sore, and find out that Christmas, in fact, means a little bit more.

In the meantime, I take the greatest of pleasure in wishing you all a very happy, warm, and MERRY CHRISTMAS!

WFA's Nativity plaque, Wisconsin State Capitol Rotunda

.

and Why Does it Matter?

False accusations should be punishable by law.

Herman Cain Suspends Campaign

Two Possibilities

The recent attacks on Herman Cain, the swiftness of his “trial” by media, and his rapid exit from the Republican presidential primary race have left many bewildered.  There lingers an uneasiness, as though a lynching had just occurred, and nobody objected.

There are two possibilities; that Herman Cain is guilty of recent accusations of sexual harassment and marital infidelity, or that he is innocent of these accusations.  We simply do not know which is the case.

If Cain were guilty, that would be unfortunate. His moral integrity would certainly be blemished.  However, to be fair, it must be pointed out that similar issues did not get in the way of Gingrich’s, Clinton’s, or JFK’s public careers.  In a society that has just removed the ban on bestiality in the military, with the White House laughingly declining to comment, surely Herman Cain’s weakness would not be as staggering as such transgressions might have been in the past?

Gingrich, Clinton, JFK

If Cain were innocent, however, then the extent of the coordinated slanderous attack on Cain would be historically significant and unnerving.  If President Obama’s campaign was prepared to coordinate such a vicious and fallacious attack on an opposing candidate, that really would make a story dwarfing other stories of political ethical misconduct, including Watergate and the more recent Blagojevich affair.

Justice

In either case, a fundamental principle has also been violated, a person’s innocence until proven guilty.

Is Cain Guilty?
Does it Matter?

We have no idea whether Herman Cain was accused justly or unjustly.

But it is very worth finding out.
Not because we want to humiliate Herman Cain or to smear his reputation further, but because of the second possibility, the possibility of a political party intentionally smearing an opponent so viciously, a possibility which must be either eliminated or confirmed.

Determining the truth would answer some important and relevant questions.
Determining the truth could not just landslide, but avalanche the coming election.

Is Herman Cain just one more man with a common weakness, or are President Obama and his henchmen unnervingly audacious liars who are prepared to do anything without limits?
Democrats have often been accused of using unethical political tactics (Alinsky tactics).  But just how far are they prepared to go?

Where is the media when some investigative journalism is really needed?

Why Might We Suspect Democrats of Smearing Cain?

In Wisconsin, Democrats have recently gone far beyond traditional political ethical boundaries in their struggle for power, including legislators fleeing the state in coordination to prevent the passage of legislation, city officials withholding police protection for conservative legislators when their lives are in danger, and liberals attempting to smear the reputation of conservative judges in order to unseat them.  Justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court have perjured themselves, and if you believe the majority of the Justices (4 against 2), the Chief Justice may be guilty of slander and of perjury.  No investigation of these matters has been initiated.

The behavior of most Democrat legislators in Wisconsin has departed from the norm drastically, with Democrat legislators chanting and shouting in unison in legislative chambers when they have been defeated in a vote:
You Tube: suits=Republicans, orange T-shirts=Democrats

Even President Obama has often been accused of lying more and more often.

The President’s  lies about Obamacare alone are staggering.

One of the best-documented examples of President Obama’s repeated lack of truthfulness is illustrated graphically on YouTube, on the issue of inclusion or non-inclusion of abortion in Obamacare:

In the YouTube video, President Obama reverses his position totally and repeatedly, depending on his audience.  As though unaware that he is filmed and that the films could be compared.  A President who has an iPhone should be aware of the potential for comparison of his speeches on YouTube.

These facts make it natural to wonder how far would Obama and Democrats would go to discredit an opponent.

Why So Much Effort to Dispatch Cain?

The speed with which Cain was dispatched, guilty or not, reflects the perceived size of the threat he posed to President Obama and to Democrats.
Herman Cain, despite his famous Libya gaffe, is as intelligent as any previous President.  His gaffes are no more serious than any previous President’s or candidate’s.
He appeals to conservatives, and he appeals to blacks.

Democrats, with the assistance of the media, have been playing the race card for a very long time. They succeeded in getting 96% of the black vote for Obama in 2008.  Democrats constantly imply that they are the only party representing the welfare of the African-American population, and that Republicans are all racists.

Since blacks constituted 13% of the electorate in the 2008 election, a Herman Cain candidacy for president would introduce the potential to split that vote, and could shift as much as 6% or more of the electorate away from Obama.  With race removed from consideration, voters might focus on issues and on performance.  A successful businessman might prove to be a very attractive candidate in the present recession.

This could be why Herman Cain, guilty or not, was dispatched so swiftly by his liberal opponents.

Herman Cain’s Campaign Has Been Suspended; Why Not Just Leave It Alone?

Many like Herman Cain.  He appeals to conservative common sense and ethical beliefs.  Even if he were guilty as accused, it would not shock many that a man in a position of power had an unfortunate weakness.  After Bill Clinton’s disgraceful conduct with a young impressionable intern in the Oval Office, little shocks anyone.  The principal concern for me regarding Herman Cain had been whether he would be a sufficiently strong pro-life candidate.  If he had satisfied concerns on that account by signing the SBA Pro-Life Pledge, I would have gladly voted for him.

Now, you cannot help but feel sympathy for Herman Cain and for his family regarding the public parading of allegations, whether true or false.

But we would all really benefit from knowing whether the allegations are true, in order to allay the suspicion that Democrats may have done to Cain on a national level what they tried to do to Justice Prosser locally in Madison, Wisconsin; to slander and libel an innocent man.

Justice David Prosser’s reputation was severely damaged, and just this week the news reports that he was hospitalized and will be out sick for one month (for an ailment that is sometimes stress-related).

Final Note

We do not know the veracity or falsehood of the allegations made against Herman Cain.

However, based on recent events in Ohio and Wisconsin, where liberals spent $29 million to defeat the restriction of collective bargaining cuts, where $44 million was spent on recall of legislators who voted for the budget repair bill, where over $30million has already been spent on the recall of Governor Walker for implementing conservative policies, and where liberals launched a completely fallacious smear campaign against Justice Prosser; also based on Herman Cain’s denial of the charges, his accuser’s (Ginger White’s) questionable reputation and previous fabrication of charges against a business partner, and based on what was at stake (the reelection of  President Obama), it is reasonable to believe that Herman Cain is yet another victim of  escalation in Democrat use of “Chicago tactics” (Alinsky tactics).  How much money would it take to influence several women to make a few public accusations without proof?  Probably a lot less than the over $100 million mentioned above.

.

Does America still maintain “innocent until proven guilty,” or have we tolerated and participated in the media lynching of Herman Cain?

.

Equally important, is anyone interested in determining just how far Democrats are prepared to go to stay in power?
I doubt whether my liberal friends and family members would vote for Obama again if they knew that unethical, vicious and fallacious attacks on honorable men were being funded by Democrats.

.

Justice

There should be a mechanism by which false accusations, slander and libel are prosecuted as automatically as physical assault and theft are prosecuted.  Verbal assault, slander, libel, and theft of good reputation are more damaging than physical assault or material theft.  False accusations can destroy a person’s career and a person’s health, and should be punishable by law.