President Obama on protecting our children from violence:
“They had their entire lives ahead of them; birthdays, graduations, weddings (wipes away a tear), kids of their own… This is our first task – caring for our children. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged. And by that measure, can we honesty say that we are doing enough, to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm? I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is NO.”
See 2-minute video:
If protecting our children from violence is “Our First Task,” why is Obama not going after the primary causes of child death?
Is intentional death by firearms the best place for President Obama to focus if he wants to protect children?
Shouldn’t the focus be accidents, or motor vehicles, or drowning, or suicide?
Why is President Obama focusing on one of the smallest dangers and the least of possibilities?
See graph for comparison:
Now, let’s add a bit more data: children’s lives lost by abortion:
Reflection for January 2013:
Where would we be without the Baby?
Babies are such an assumed part of life, that few stop to think where we would be without babies.
Yet without babies, civilization would grind to a halt in less than 50 years.
We would all lie around in unstaffed nursing homes, with nobody to take care of us.
Getting rid of babies, even just a portion of them, contributes more to the demise of our civilization than some potential global warming or some imagined asteroid hit.
Babies replenish the human race.
Babies people the planet.
Babies turn into adults, who do the work.
Babies turn into taxpayers, who pay the bills.
Babies have always been around, and there has never been a shortage of them (until now).
God in His wisdom designed the human race as male and female, designed the love between man and woman to be powerful, faithful and fruitful, providing a constant source of babies born out of that love. God instructed us on how to live out that love in the family, the most basic and most successful method for the perpetuation of the human race.
The success of the family in the continuation of the human race rests in the sacrificial love found only in the family.
The family reflects the same sacrificial love God showed for us on His Cross.
The family reflects Christ’s kind of love, which gives up one’s life for others, as good parents would for the child that they love.
The Importance of the Baby
God, in addition to designing babies into the perpetuation of the human race, chose to come to us himself as a baby.
This says something. On the part of God, it was a very intentional and meaningful choice.
God could have come as a King, a warrior, a wise man, a superman, or even as an alien form of life. He could have come as a teenager, as a woman, or as someone who is 130 years old.
He could have come as bodiless spirit with super powers (as Himself).
But God chose to come to us as a baby.
God also chose to retain the humility and the lack of worldliness which are characteristic of a baby throughout His life, in order to illustrate to us how we should live, and what is of utmost importance in this life.
We just finished celebrating the Nativity of Christ at Christmas.
In His arrival as a baby, God illustrated to us all the essential elements of a holy and successful family.
One man, one woman, for a lifetime, welcoming children.
Babies in History
Matteo di Giovanni – Slaughter of the Innocents
God came to earth as a baby.
He survived Herod’s slaughter of baby boys by fleeing to Egypt, guided by his father Joseph, who was guided by God in a dream.
Apparently Herod knew the potential one baby can represent.
Long before that, Pharaoh knew the potential one baby can represent; Pharoah slaughtered all Hebrew babies in an attempt to get rid of Moses.
Today, many have forgotten the importance, the sacredness, and the potential of babies, as well as of all human life.
Today, we contracept and abort away our babies, our future citizens, out of some misguided and short sighted attempt to avoid inconvenience.
Abortion: Convenience, or Suicidal Act?
Regrettably, in addition to taking away another human being’s right to life, the “convenience” achieved by the elimination of a baby is extremely short lived. The guilt, the loss and the mourning caused by abortion overwhelms us, and our lives are damaged, not improved. We deprive ourselves of our own children, and deprive our society of its future citizens. We also suffer the economic impact of eliminating millions of human beings from future contribution to our nation.
Sonogram of Unborn Baby Steve Jobs? Barack Obama?
Steve Jobs was almost aborted, but was put up for adoption instead. How fortunate!
President Obama, as the black child of a single mother, would today have faced a 77% probability of abortion. Is he grateful for his gift of life? Was that gift from God, or was it from his parents, and should parents have the right to dispose of a child? If disposal before birth is O.K., why not after birth?
One child can change the world, and it is not for us to decide which child lives and which child dies. When we do that, we try to play God ourselves.
How Many Babies Do We Need?
God used to do a pretty good job of determining how many babies we need.
Now, if want to take over that job, the moral implications of terminating millions of lives aside, it would be wise to figure out how many babies our society needs.
For starters, we need to replace ourselves; an ever-shrinking society cannot maintain its infrastructure or take care of its aged.
It’s obvious that each married couple needs to have 2 children to replace themselves.
Plus another to make up for those who don’t marry?
Catholics used to have a tradition of firstborn sons going into the priesthood, and of encouraging at least one daughter to enter the convent. The resulting supply of priests and religious who staff the Churches, schools, charitable institutions, orphanages and hospitals, helped families to raise moral and upstanding children, and helped to benefit all of humanity throughout the centuries. These spiritual servants did not marry, did not have children, and had to be replaced in the society. So married couples should have a third child at least, to allow some of their children to make such saintly and dedicated career choices in life.
Disease, plague and accidents also claim lives. More replacements needed.
Some people are not fertile. They have to be replaced as well.
Better add child #4 to the family.
So any determination of number of babies needed should account for all of the above factors and needs. And the number of babies needed from each fertile couple is not going to be, by any calculation zero, nor one or two. Those of us who do not have at least 4 children, unless we have fertility problems, are not pulling our weight, as far at the perpetuation of the human race is concerned.
The More The Merrier!
And for every married couple with zero children, we need a married couple with 8 children.
May God bless large families and may the rest of us celebrate them and support them!
(BTW, for those looking for an economic motivation to add to moral and loving motivations, large families tend to take care of their elderly themselves, rather than relying on your taxpayer money and on nursing homes to take care of their elderly. And their elderly are happier and healthier.)
Rocking the Cradle CAILLE Leon-Emil 1836-1907 (France)
Babies raised with sacrificial love, most often found in parental love, can turn into heroes and saints like Abraham Lincoln and Pope John Paul the Great.
Babies who are neglected or abused can often turn into cruel monsters like Saddam Hussein and Hitler, who were mistreated as children.
Those who rocked the cradles of these babies (or didn’t) are responsible, to some degree, for the deeds of the children.
The raising of a baby is important. It brings the potential for the greatest joy, the greatest achievement, and the greatest fulfillment in life.
It also requires the greatest sacrifice and work, and brings the potential for the greatest heartache. The Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Mother of Our Lord attest to that.
Ultimately, no matter what choices we make, paradise will elude us on earth; our lives will contain both hardships and blessings.
Eradicating babies from our lives will not eliminate hardship from our lives; discarding babies will simply eliminate beauty and love from our lives.
Not a Union Job
The raising of a baby is not a 9 to 5 job.
It’s not accomplished in a few years.
You don’t get summers off.
Other people cannot be paid to perform the sacrificial level of service that a loving mother and father routinely provide for their children.
And, with all due respect to teachers, teachers and their unions do not provide all that is needed by a child; they can only complement, at best, the essential love, care, nurture and training that the parents provide. You will never find an employee who provides the same level of love and sacrifice for a child that a parent can provide. The likelihood that teachers unions, which look out not for the welfare of the child, but for the comfort and benefits of union bosses and of teachers, the likelihood that these unions will substitute adequately for absentee parents or for working parents, is virtually zero.
Unions Rocking Our Cradles? Madison Teachers Union Protests, March 2011 >: [
A recent attempt to close the racial achievement gap in Madison, Wisconsin, with the establishment of a special school, Madison Prep, failed. The failure was partially due the the fact that union regulations would not permit teachers to provide the sacrificial levels of time and dedication that would be required when attempting to compensate for reduced family and community involvement in the raising of children.
No union, kibbutz, nor Hillary Clinton’s “village” will compensate for the absence of devoted parents in the raising of a child.
Success in the rearing of quality human beings is always tied to love, to time, to adult involvement and to adult-student ratio, as has been proved repeatedly with “Big Brother” and other programs through which adults invest time and love in children.
The Hardest, Yet the Most Rewarding
Despite the time-intensive hard work and sacrifice involved in child rearing, when people are asked, in old age, what had given them the most joy in life, they inevitably answer that a good marriage and their children provide them with the greatest joy and satisfaction, above all other things in life.
Responsibilities in Life
Most would agree that each of us is not born for the sole purpose of existing and being pampered and served by others.
Honestly, where would these people for serving us come from, anyway? Who in their right mind would volunteer to be our servants when they could demand to be masters themselves?
Servants for all ?
So, particularly in democratic societies, we accept the fact that we are not born entitled to servants, and most of us have to work. We have to do our laundry. We have to shovel the snow, and we have to pay our taxes.
Neglect of work is even addressed in the Bible:
If anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat” – 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
So why would the perpetuation of the human race be considered optional, if all other work is not optional?
Are we entitled to evade the hard work of parenting, then to demand that the children of others look after us sacrificially and lovingly in our old age?
Will paid employees and union workiers show us the same kind of care we would get from our children?
Is not the raising of children a duty and a responsibility?
A duty which, incidentally, also provides the greatest satisfaction and joy in life?
The raising of a family remains the biggest source of love and satisfaction on earth.
Those who choose to discard their children through contraception and abortion are shortsightedly hurting themselves, as well as hurting the entire society.
The Irony of Our Situation in 2013
The economic situation we are suffering in the United States at the moment, the staggering debt and the shortage of tax income, is due, in part, to the fact that we are starting to feel the shortage of young people and of babies which started in 1973 with the legalization of abortion by Roe v. Wade on January 21, 1973.
Since then, we have eliminated 54 million citizens from age 0 to 40. And their potential children are missing. There are probably 100 million citizens, aged 0 to 40, missing from the United States right now. That would be about 1/4 of the nation missing.
Our national deficit, the amount we are missing from taxes, is also about 1/4; 1/4 of the national budget is missing.
Or lack of foresight, lack of planning, and cumulative effects of lack of baby-appreciation since 1973?
One of the lucky 30%
Baby-appreciation is at an all-time low in 2013.
Now we have the most pro-abortion President in U.S. history in office. Ironically, this is a man who would probably have been aborted himself, if abortion had been legal at the time of his birth.
He is so pro-abortion that he supports the killing of a baby born accidentally in a botched 9-month term partial-birth abortion. He voted for that while he was Senator.
He is so pro-abortion that he supports the abortion of his own grandchildren.
He is so pro-abortion that he has forced mandates on religious employers, forcing the employers to provide abortifacient drugs to their employees, against their own religious beliefs. He added this emphasis on abortion after promising his pro-life Democrat colleagues (Stupak and his 11) that ObamaCare would not include abortion.
We now have a President who has forced abortion onto America, against the wishes of 2/3 of the American population, by deception and through lies.
An Ironic Historical Omen?
This first radically pro-abortion President will be re-inaugurated on January 21, 2013.
President Obama’s re-inauguration should have been one day earlier, on January 20, 2013. But this year January 20th fell on a Sunday, so the date was pushed to Monday, January 21, 2013.
January 21, 2013 is, ironically, the eve of the 40th anniversary of the legalization of abortion in the United States by the Supreme Court Decision Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973.
Our most radically pro-abortion President will be re-inaugurated on the last day marking 40 years of abortion in the United States, when the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalized abortion and started the elimination of now 1/4 of the population in the United States.
The increased ardor of pro-life prayer and pro-life political activity in recent years, particularly during the time approaching the last November 6, 2012 election, inspired many to believe that the election would displace Barack Obama from the Presidency and that the tide of abortion in the United States would be reversed.
This obviously did not occur.
My faith in God makes me suspect that although we did not guess God’s plan, all the prayers and efforts have not been in vain. Those who wait and watch patiently will see the hand of God operating quietly in response to our prayers.
A Personal Note
Reflecting on babies in January is a personal pleasure for me, since my two sons were January babies. They are no longer babies, but still, together with my husband, they are the joy of my life.
The joy and satisfaction of having their freindship does not approach in any way the satisfaction I have enjoyed from any other pursuit, professional or recreational.
Happy Birthdaytoday to one of my January no-longer-babies!
Then Happy Birthday eleven days from now, to the other January no-longer-baby.
What’s my husband’s birthday? All Saints Day. Really.
Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion,
was issued on January 22, 1973.
This January 22, 2013, will commemorate
the 40th anniversary of that Supreme Court decision.
To date, 55 million infants have been aborted in the United States, and are missing from our ranks as a nation.
55 million of us were not born, were not baptized, did not graduate, did not marry, did not have children, and did not contribute to the world in all areas, including philosophy, science, art, and religion.
At least one out of 6 Americans is missing. If these children, who would now be 40, also had children, as many as one quarter of all Americans could be missing by now.
One person who escaped abortion very narrowly, yet lived to contribute mind-boggling contributions to our society’s present capabilities, was Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple. What would our world be now, without Steve Jobs?
President Obama is another example of a person who might have been aborted, if Roe v. Wade had been legal at the time he was born. As the black child of a single mother, his chances of being aborted would have been extremely high. 77% of African-American pregnancies are aborted right now, a black child is 5 times as likely to be aborted as a white child.
Numerous potential Presidents may have been aborted in these past forty years.
President Barack Hussein Obama,
the most radically pro-abortion President in United States history,
will be re-inaugurated on January 21, 2013,
the eve of the 40th anniversary,
of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
The Significance of the number 40 for Christians
The number 40 is a very meaningful number in Judeo Christian history.
During the Old Testament great flood, rain fell for forty nights and forty days, during which all living beings on earth perished, except those on Noah’s ark.
Spies explored the land of Israel for forty days (Numbers 13).
The Old Testament Exodus from Egypt lasted 40 years, with the Jewish people wandering the Sinai desert. This period of years represents the time it takes for a new generation to arise.
Moses’ life is divided into 40 year segments in the Old Testament.
Eli, Saul, David, and Solomon, Jewish leaders and kings of the Old Testament, ruled for forty years.
Goliath challenged the Israelites twice a day for forty days before David defeated him.
Moses spend three consecutive periods of forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai.
40 lashes is one of the punishments meted out by the Sanhedrin.
Christ fasted and prayed in the desert for 40 days prior to His Temptation, Ministry, Passion, Death and Resurrection.
Forty days was the period from the Resurrection of Jesus to His Ascension into Heaven.
Lord, you blessed your land; you forgave the guilt of your people.
O Lord, you once favoured your land
and revived the fortunes of Jacob,
you forgave the guilt of your people
and covered all their sins.
You averted all your rage,
you calmed the heat of your anger.
Revive us now, God, our helper!
Put an end to your grievance against us.
Will you be angry with us for ever,
will your anger never cease?
Will you not restore again our life
that your people may rejoice in you?
Let us see, O Lord, your mercy
and give us your saving help.
I will hear what the Lord God has to say,
a voice that speaks of peace,
peace for his people and his friends
and those who turn to him in their hearts.
His help is near for those who fear him
and his glory will dwell in our land.
Mercy and faithfulness have met;
justice and peace have embraced.
Faithfulness shall spring from the earth
and justice look down from heaven.
The Lord will make us prosper
and our earth shall yield its fruit.
Justice shall march before him
and peace shall follow his steps.
Glory to the Father and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit:
as it was in the beginning, is now,
and will be for ever. Amen.
Lord, you blessed your land; you forgave the guilt of your people.
For Judeo-Christian values and for the Constitution of the United States
One of the prime goals of this cultural values blog is to defend my religion, Catholicism, against the regrettably frequent and unjust attacks we suffer, particularly in Madison, WI.
One of this blog’s first blog categories was “Don’t Diss My Church.”
And in Madison, the Wisconsin State Journal has provided more than it’s fair share of imbalanced reporting on Catholics, frequently fueling my blog.
Why Pray the Rosary at Madison’s Capitol Square?
Catholics praying the rosary at Capitol Rosary Rally
Now that the Obama administration has embarked on restricting the religious freedom of Catholics, Madison Catholics have begun praying the rosary on Thursday evenings on the Madison Capitol steps, to beg God’s help in the restoration of religious freedom to our nation.
Madison’s Rosary Rally gatherings attract 150-300 quiet, polite people each week. The crowd includes families with small children, young singles, and many grandparents as well. The Catholics gather quietly after business hours, do not disrupt Capitol business, leave no litter behind, do no shouting, carry no vuvuzelas, whistles or drums, and don’t even carry signs. They come, they pray for our nation, and they leave quietly, leaving no damage in their wake.
Who Heckles Children Praying the Rosary?
About 3 to 10 ne’er-do-wells have started showing up at these rosary events, attempting to disrupt them. Their tactics include shouting four letter words from across the street, mocking the rosary, carrying rude signs mentioning private body parts, and all the usual aggressive radical left tactics Wisconsin has witnessed at recent teacher union protests, and at Madison Pro-Life rallies (which radicals have routinely tried to disrupt in recent years, and where they have even been known to get up in pulpits at Library Mall and perform strip-tease dances in front of children with literally only God knows what motivation).
Teacher union protest tactics:
Is the Wisconsin State Journal Heckling the Rosary?
So, Doug Erickson, the “religion” reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ), instead of covering the story from the perspective of the hundreds of Catholics participating in the Capitol Rosary Rally who represent one quarter of America, covered the story instead from the perspective of the handful of rude hecklers.
WSJ Rosary Rally Article- Thinly Disguised Radical Dem Propaganda
Thinly Disguised Radical Dem Propaganda Headline
The Wisconsin State Journal’s misleading headline was amplified by a factor of 118,000 through its State-wide circulation, and the whole of Wisconsin was misinformed. Not to mention online readers, or readers of spin-off articles such as those at the LaCrosse Tribune, Yahoo News or the Orlando Sentinel.
Here’s a You Tube showing the Capitol lunch protesters with whom Craig Spaulding participated frequently and which forced Capitol Tour Guides to wear ear plugs; the group whose perspective the Wisconsin State Journal favors over the perspective of Catholics praying the Rosary at the Capitol:
Second Rosary Critic
Annie Laurie Gaylor of FFRF at Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally, Madison, W
Second Rosary Critic
Another individual quoted by the WSJ article is one of the co-presidents of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), Annie Laurie Gaylor, who personally protested at the Stand Up For Religious Freedom Rally last June 8th, and who made no objections while her husband and co-President of FFRF Dan Barker repeatedly heckled praying children and scandalized them by shouting sexually suggestive remarks addressed to the children.
Dan Barker (FFRF) at Madison’s Freedom From Religion Rally; and what was Dan Barker doing? Shouting rude things at children.
Annie Laurie Gaylor and FFRF are in a minority not only because they are atheists, but particularly because they are a miniscule minority among atheists themselves. They constitute only 0.1 of 1% of atheists, or one out of a thousand atheists. That’s right, 999 out of 1,000 atheists, unlike Gaylor and FFRF, are tolerant of 80% Christian America, of 25% Catholic America, and have no problem with our legally established American right to public prayer which President Obama periodically exercises. Gaylor and her FFRF, whom the Wisconsin State Journal chose to quote in this article, constitute the angry radical fringe, which represents only one out of 33 thousand people, or 0.003 of 1% of the population of America.
Third Rosary Heckler
Another Rosary heckler (not mentioned by the Wisconsin State Journal article) made herself known to me when her braggadocio arrived in my inbox, through an online discussion in which I had participated. She belatedly joined a discussion which I had previously viewed as a reasonable and constructive conversation with a Madison LGBT activist, and which started when I objected to the activist’s treatment of the first Capitol Rosary Rally and of Bishop Morlino on his blog.
Aside:Since that time, the LGBT activist has begun censoring comments published on his blog, selecting supportive radical comments for publication, and declining to publish further discussion with me. I guess there are limits to the “Bluebird’s” willingness to discuss truth, after all, particularly when he and his friends start losing the argument. Turns out, he’s also a regular at the Lunchtime Solidarity Singers at the Capitol, who drive tour guides to wear ear protection.
Back to the third Rosary heckler: her name is Genie Ogden. Genie bragged in the online discussion that she heckles the Rosary Rally weekly, boos, and sings “Solidarity Forever” at Catholics who are singing hymns. Genie, like Craig Spaulding, was also a regular member of the Capitol lunchtime “Sing-a-Longs,” the fringe minority who continues to make noise at the Madison Capitol at lunchtime, despite Governor Walker’s re-election by an even larger majority in Wisconsin than he enjoyed in his first election.
Perhaps Genie is looking for new outlets for her anger, now that the recall is over. The You Tube of “Solidarity” protesters (to which Craig and Genie belonged, the noise of which drove people to wear ear protection) was presented above.
Schoenstatt Sister after the first Capitol Rosary Rally
Do these rosary hecklers/solidarity singers really believe that such actions would be persuasive and would bolster their cause?
Genie, like Doug Spaulding and FFRF, tried to claim that the Rosary Rallies are political, and that they constitute a violation of separation of Church and State. What she does not seem to realize is that neither she, nor other liberals, can divine the thoughts of others, and that the mention of Governor Walker and of Paul Ryan once in the course of thirteen Rosary Rallies, in the context of being answers to prayers, reflects a pro-life, not a Republican position. Democrat Stupak and his 11 Democrat supporters were an equal blessing and an equal answer to prayer when they stood up for the exclusion of abortion from ObamaCare. The pro-life beliefs of Catholics are not political; they are ethical.
.Rosary Hecklers in General
The Rosary Hecklers and critics above exhibit a bigoted and tyrannical attitude, denying to others the rights that the hecklers enjoy themselves.
Madison Teacher’s Union Protesters
Solidarity union activists like Craig and Genie, and LGBT activists like the Bluebird, reserve the right to use Madison’s Capitol Square for themselves to promote their own (minority) views and social agendas, but they seem to miss the hypocrisy in denying the use of the Capitol Square to praying Christians, who represent many more people than they do- a fact ignored by WSJ reporters.
The feeble attempts made by Craig, Annie and Genie to label Rosary Rallies events as political
Progressives Misjudging Catholics?
also reflects a judgmental attitude; they claim to know the motivation of others. After misjudging their target’s motivation, many “progressives” continue by attacking and violating the rights of those with whom they disagree. The Constitution does not guarantee a Right to Hateful Harassment. Moreover, the effectiveness of such tactics in promoting one’s cause are highly dubious.
I am proud to say that I have never gone to any Madison Capitol Square event to boo, heckle, curse, scream, disrupt or to counter-protest. I don’t engage in hateful behavior towards those with whom I disagree. Prayer is a much more civilized (and more productive) response. My sentiments are representative of those of Rosary Rally attendees.
Ignoring Two Thirds of America
Doug Erickson missed the boat completely by covering the Rosary Rally story from the perspective of a few radical protesters, and by omitting the concerns of two thirds of America.
The Rosary Rallies actually represent the majority of Wisconsin and of America.
The Catholics at the Rally represent all religions in America, which were recently galvanized and united by the religious freedom violations of the HHS Mandate. Numerous religions joined Catholics in opposing these violations of the First Amendment, an amendment which all religions value. Orthodox Christian Bishops, Protestant Theological Seminary chancellors, Presbyterian Bishops, Southern Baptists, Lutherans Evangelical Lutherans and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America have rallied to support the Catholic Church in upholding the Catholic position on the HHS mandate. This is what Doug Erickson has failed to cover in his reporting.
The Rosary Rallies are large, peaceful, sustained, and they represent the reasonable Judeo-Christian views and the civilized demeanor of at least two thirds of America.
Numerous religions, including Baptists, Evangelicals and Jews, support the Catholic position in Stand Up for Religious Freedom, the program which gave birth to this Rosary Rally.
In ignoring the perspective of Catholics at the Rosary Rally in favor of the perspective of a couple fringe radicals, Doug Erickson has ignored 2/3 of America. He has ignored the majority of America’s opposition to federally funded abortion policy, and he has ignored the social consequences of such abortion policy, which has already resulted in shocking coerced abortion rates of 64% . Abortion is a much bigger deal than most people think .
Ignoring Religious Leaders:
Evangelical Pastors Join Catholics in the Defense of Religious Liberty
The national Religious Liberty debate has been ignored by WSJ, in favor of reporting speculations by a couple of “progressives” on the motivations of Catholics at prayer.
“THIS AREA HAS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR NON-PROFIT GROUPS TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL 1ST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.”
Evangelical Christian pastors have just organized a bold and courageous protest against the muzzling of moral leaders in America, and in support of religious freedom. On October 7, 2012, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will be celebrated. More than 1,000 pastors will preach sermons from the pulpit talking about the candidates running for office and then making a specific recommendation. The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS. The pastors expect the IRS to try to enforce a 1954 IRS tax code amendment forbidding tax-exempt organizations from participating in discussion of candidates for public office. When the IRS tries to revoke tax-exempt status and to impose an excise tax on them, the pastors will welcome the court battle. They claim that the 1954 IRS tax code amendment is blatantly unconstitutional, and they welcome an official evaluation of the amendment in court.
This effort is sponsored by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal ministry formed 18 years ago for the defense of religious freedom through strategy, training, funding and litigation.
Not the First Time WSJ Has Slanted the News
Slanted reporting in the Wisconsin State Journal is not new, nor surprising. Their coverage of the 2011 Teacher’s Union Protests was equally misleading and predisposed toward the “progressive” viewpoint. Lawlessness and misconduct was not reported, both on the part of demonstrators who trashed the Capitol, and on the part of Democrat officials who conspired to block the legal process. WSJ coverage was so slanted and misleading, that this blogger took to reporting what’s really happening in Wisconsin on my blog.
The WSJ also gives the tiny Freedom From Religion Foundation quite a bit of favorable press. Again, a fringe radical group (0.003 of 1% of Americans) gets favored coverage over mainstream Wisconsin.
Twisting and Misrepresenting Catholicism
Coverage of Catholicism in the WSJ has frequently been unprofessionally imbalanced.
Just this week, Doug Erickson did a “moral analysis” of the Catholic vote.
He gave equal weight and space to dissident national co-chairman of Catholics for Obama, as he did to Bishop Morlino of Madison, who is a legitimate and accurate representative of the Catholic Church.
So in Doug Erickson’s world, barakobama.com, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and a couple thousand petition signatories carry the same moral authority as a Catholic Bishop and 78 million real American Catholics. Doug is equating the fringe 0.06 of 1% of Catholics whose theology is steered by Obama, with legitimate Catholic officials and faithful Catholics. (Bishop Morlino’s education includes a doctorate in Moral Theology from the Gregorian University in Rome, with specialization in fundamental moral theology and bioethics.)
Doug Erickson: Reporting on the 0.06 of 1% of Madison Diocese Catholics (Holy Wisdom) – and relegating the 99.94% (real) Catholics to the last paragraph, entitled “detractors.”
Another Doug Erickson report focused on pair of previously Catholic nuns at Holy Wisdom Monastery, who appear to be recruiting Catholics to join their feminist Sunday services in place of attending the Mass. These nuns retain the name Benedictines, despite having rescinded their Benedictine vows and having separated themselves from the Catholic Church. Doug Erickson reported on this fringe minority group of two very favorably, but relegated input from real Catholics, including from the Diocese of Madison, to a last paragraph entitled “detractors,” where he quoted Catholics minimally, and out of context. A minority of two dissidents was portrayed in a favored light, while real Catholics were again downplayed.
The misrepresentation of Catholics in the Wisconsin State Journal could fill numerous blog posts (and has in the past), but the above three examples will suffice here.
For a Truthful Report on the Capitol Rosary Rally: see You Tube
The Capitol Rosary Rally, which the Wisconsin State Journal did not bother to portray accurately, and which reflects the Christian views and the civilized demeanor of the majority of Christian America can be seen here:
Come join Catholics in the 14th Capitol Rosary Rally tonight, Thursday, Sept 20, 2012, at the State Street steps of the Madison Capitol at 7 PM. Come watch what real Americans do (they act civilized and pray), stand in solidarity with Christians for religious freedom in America. All are welcome to watch, to listen, or to pray.
Discussing the Actual Issue
Something else Doug Erickson failed to do in his Capitol Rosary article was to discuss the question that his progressive friends raised; is it legal for Catholics to pray the rosary at Madison’s Capitol Square?
So public prayer is legal, and public gatherings at the Wisconsin State Capitol are legal.
Public gatherings at Madison’s Capitol have included Farmer’s Markets, restaurant showcase events (Taste of Madison), and Wisconsin Capitol Pride, an event promoting LGBTQA acceptance and rights.
Why would Catholic gatherings be forbidden? Why would promoting prayer for religious freedom be forbidden?
Discussing the Double Standard
WSJ failed to address this double standard of progressive Rosary critics in the article.
The progressive Rosary Hecklers quoted by WSJ demand freedom of belief and freedom of speech for themselves, but not for others. They want the right to scream four-letter words at others across Capitol Square in the presence of children, but to forbid the words “Our Father, who art in heaven.”
Further Important Issues Omitted by the WSJ report:
Validity of Christian claims regarding the violation of religious freedom by the HHS mandate
Evaluation of the position of America’s moral leaders on the religious freedom issue
Reporting the obvious differences in behavior, lawfulness and respect for the rights of others between the rosary participants and the heckling critics.
Definition of “separation of Church and State.”
Discussion of whether a once-in-14-prayer-rallies mention of two pro-life politicians constitutes a “violation of separation of Church and State.”
Discussion of the very pertinent 1954 IRS code amendment, which has been used by the IRS to silence Christian pastors, but has not been subject to an examination of constitutionality by the courts.
The effect that restrictions on religious freedom would have on the rights of progressives when in the future conservative Presidents are elected, and the effect on this country’s historical role as the safe haven for the world’s émigrés.
Suggestion: if Doug Erickson is to be the WSJ “religion” reporter, he must examine the serious issues affecting religion, rather than using his status at the WSJ to spread progressive propaganda. He should provide some professional and journalisticly ethical analysis of real religious issues.
Shame on the Wisconsin State Journal for Ethics Violations
Come tonight, and every Thursday night at 7PM through November 1st.
Join Catholics today in the 14th Capitol Rosary Rally - Thursday, Sept 20, 2012, on the State Street steps of the Madison Capitol at 7 PM.
Come watch what most Americans do (they act civilized and they pray).
Stand in solidarity with Christians for religious freedom in America. All are welcome to watch, to listen, or to pray.
Presbyterians welcome. All welcome, including any not mentioned above.
Invitation limited to well-behaved people who respect the rights of others.
All of us need, and will benefit from, freedom of religion (of belief), which is guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. This freedom has been violated by President Obama’s HHS Mandate, a mandate which must be reversed.
Why Even Atheists Should Stand Against Presidential Mandates
If Presidents of the future will be permitted to issue mandates like the HHS Mandate, without popular vote, without Senate or House vote, and without Supreme Court evaluation, what mandate will the NEXT President of the United States, who may not belong to your favorite political affiliation, decree?
I may not like President Obama’s mandates.
But others, including atheists, would not like President Romney’s mandates
or President Rick Santorum’s mandates
or President Ron Paul’s mandates
or President Michelle Bachmann’s mandates.
The next President could issue a Mandate that imposes tax penalties not on Catholics, but on International Workers Union Members, FFRF Members, Solidarity Singers, and Madison LGBT activists- severe, crippling penalties. Then were would Craig, Annie, Genie and Bluebird be? The Mandate could include penalties for Wisconsin Sate Journal reporters, too, Doug.
We all benefit from supporting freedom and democracy.
We have to coexist, so progressives should realize that in 46 days the shoe might be on the other foot.
This is still a democracy, and Presidential mandates are thinly disguised despotic edicts.
These are some of the religious, ethical and cultural issues that Doug Erickson and the WSJ should be discussing, rather than spreading the speculations of fringe progressives on the motivation of Catholics.
One Wall Street Journal discussion participant typified the arguments of radical Catholic supporters of the HHS Mandate, or the Obama Mandate, as I like to call it.
Response to Radical Arguments
Here are his comments and my reply:
As a practicing Catholic, I’m still waiting for the day when the Catholic bishops organize a “Fortnight for Poverty,” a “Fortnight for Homelessness”, a “Fortnight for Healthcare”, or anything else with an underlying religion-based opinion on that doesn’t focus on women’s health and reproductive issues like this “Fortnight for Freedom”. Easy to tell what the bishops care about…
For a “practicing Catholic,” you have a pretty resentful attitude toward the Catholic bishops. Hard to imagine why you participate in the institution headed by them. Seems like you have mislabeled yourself- it’s not “practicing Catholic,” it’s more like “cafeteria Catholic” at best, and “heretic Catholic” (i.e., not Catholic at all) at worst, depending on what you are thinking.
Also hard to imagine that you don’t understand that ALL opinions, priorities and agendas, including the ones you mentioned, rely on having the freedom to pursue them.
Finally, hard to imagine that you are unaware that Catholic institutions DO already serve the poor, the homeless, and those who need healthcare, more so than any other societal group, including government. Catholic institutions lead in this area in the U.S. and around the world.
If you could just see past the “contraceptive” label that liberals have purposely associated with this mandate, you would see that the conflict actually includes THREE very important issues:
• Mandates. Does the President of the U.S. have the authority to declare (mandate) what is right and what is wrong without consulting the American people, the legislature, the Supreme Court, or moral and religious experts? • Killing (abortifacients). And yes, forcing Catholics to pay for the killing of human beings IS a bigger issue than the ones you mentioned. • Shutting down Catholic institutions financially with penalties — first, by law, require Catholics do something they cannot morally do, then, when they violate the law which violates their religious beliefs and religious liberty, penalize them financially in such a way that Catholic institutions become bankrupt within two years.
THIS is what the “Contraceptive Mandate” is really about.
It’s not really a “Contraceptive Mandate,” but is more like:
• “Let’s Establish a New Power for President Obama: He Can Declare (He Can Mandate) What is Right and What is Wrong Mandate” • “Let’s Force Everyone to Pay for Other People’s Abortion Mandate” • “Let’s Bankrupt Catholic Institutions which Oppose Obama’s Abortion Agenda Mandate” • “Let’s Close Catholic Institutions so the Obama Administration Can Take Over Several More Segments of the Economy and Control More Hospitals, Universities and Other Service Institutions Mandate” • “Let’s Allow President Obama, Not Americans or Their Religious Leaders, to Declare What is Right and What is Wrong Mandate” • “President Obama Will Decree What is Right and What is Wrong, and Heads Will Roll if Anyone Disagrees Mandate” • “Didn’t Henry VIII Do that to Sir Thomas More (Whose Feast Day Was Yesterday) Mandate?” Do What? “Declare What is Right and Wrong, then Behead Those Who Disagree With the King Mandate”
Me helping Henry VIII with his Mandates (and I'm a "practicing Catholic!")
Hope you do not pretend to impose your amateur opinions on other experts in your life, like your doctors, your lawyers, your professors, your police officers, etc., etc., as you seem comfortable imposing your amateur opinions on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
You’ve given me an idea — I should declare myself an Anglican and start telling the Queen of England what the Anglican Church should teach…. …But that’s why America was founded, to get away from Royal Mandates, wasn’t it? How about we ask women (of whom I am one) what THEY want instead of having Obama MANdate what is “good” for women? What a novel idea, in a democratic nation, asking the women what they want, instead of telling them!
What IS in the Mandate?
Some AUDIO resources for those who are interested in understanding what is in the Mandate and why the Catholic Church is concerned:
(Fortnight for Freedom, 7PM July 21st, 2012, at the Wisconsin State Capitol, on the State Street steps.)
The First Amendment
President Obama’s Contraceptive Mandate has violated the First Amendment, depriving Catholics in the United States of their freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, by forcing Catholics institutions to provide abortifacient pills to employees of Catholic institutions, forcing Catholics by law to do something Catholics believe to be morally wrong.
This is not a “women’s health” issue, because the pills are as affordable as aspirin, tissues, and other medical supplies which have often been considered “over-the-counter,” and which have frequently not been covered by insurance policies in the past. In fact, women use numerous products that are not, and are not likely ever to be covered by insurance, including cosmetics, lotions and sanitary products. All of the “services” covered by the “Contraceptive Mandate” are extremely affordable, and any woman who can afford aspirin or a meal at McDonald’s can afford to pay for these items herself.
By choosing to mandate (to require by law) the free provision of abortifacient pills, the Obama administration is not trying to help women. The administration is trying to place financial strain on the Catholic Church, which is one of the largest and strongest opponents of the Obama administration’s “social” agenda. If Obama succeeds in pushing through ObamaCare and the Contraceptive Mandate, Catholic institutions will be forced by their conscience, like Saint Thomas More, to break the law. Cathoilics will be forced into civil disobedience, into not providing abortifacient services, and then into paying $2,000 yearly penalties per employee, which are estimated to bankrupt most Catholic institutions within two years. Goodbye Catholic universities, Catholic High Schools, Catholic Grammar Schools, Catholic hospitals, Catholic soup kitchens, Catholic adoption agencies, etc., etc. Goodbye the role that Catholics and their institutions have played in our national life since the birth of this nation.
Hello, one more segment of the economy that the Obama administration can take over, in addition to health care and General Motors. Also, a blow to the Catholic Church, the largest (25% of Americans are Catholic), most organized and strongest institution involved in opposing the Obama administration’s “social” agenda, particularly abortion. Two birds with one stone. Isn’t the Obama administration wickedly clever!?
The Obama administration’s biggest agenda, both nationally and worldwide, is abortion. But they have realized from recent polls that Americans are increasingly opposed to abortion, and now a majority of Americans cannot be relied upon to support Obama’s, Hillary’s and Sebelius’ national and global abortion agenda. To understand why abortion is so important to these people, see Abortion: a Much Bigger Deal Than You Think.
Since Americans are no longer likely to support the abortion agenda, the abortion agenda must be sneaked in under a less controversial issue, such as contraception. By sneaking in abortifacients under the phrase “Contraceptive Mandate,” the Obama administration hopes to get the support of the American majority against the Catholic Church. It also hopes to divide the Catholic Church, and thus to reduce the power of the Catholic Church, rendering it less able to oppose Obama’s “social” (translated: moral) issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, and government funding of numerous medical strategies that facilitate promiscuity and discourage or demote traditional family life. Divide and conquer. Isn’t the Obama administration wickedly clever!?
So Now, What’s Happening?
Americans Are Praying
So what do we do when the wicked set snares for us?
People praying the the Wisconsin State Capitol on Corpus Christi Sunday, June 10, 2012
Good Christians pray for God’s help:
For my eyes are upon you, O Lord,
in you I take refuge; do not take away my soul.
Guard me from the trap they have set before me,
From the snares of evildoers.
Let the wicked fall into their own nets,
While only I pass over them safely.
- Psalm 141:8-10
The bishops have called us to focus “all the energies the Catholic community can muster” for religious liberty during this time.
Special prayers, novenas, Masses, rosaries, and concerted ringing of Church bells, are planned. Friday, June 28th, the Priestly Ordination Mass will be dedicated to Religious Freedom through Fortnight for Freedom:
In Madison, this begins with a Capitol Rosary Rally on Thursday, June 21st, 2012, at the Wisconsin State Capitol at 7:00 PM, on the State Street Steps of the Capitol Building. Madison’s Bishop Morlino will join the first rosary event.
Come to help us Catholics pray, or come to watch, or come just to lend Catholics moral support. You don’t have to pray the rosary to attend; you only have to be in support of religious freedom for all Americans, and be willing to ask God’s help. Catholics happen to be the largest religious denomination in the United States, and are thus able to organize, but all who support religious freedom are welcome to attend.
Why Pray? Why the Rosary?
Catholics have found the Rosary to be a particularly powerful form of prayer throughout the ages. The victory of Christian forces which prevented the Islamic invasion of Europe at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 was attributed to Pope Pius V’s call for all of Europe to pray the rosary. The Christian fleet was at a material disadvantage, and the Turkish fleet had superior numbers, yet the Christian fleet won.
At the hour of victory, Pope Pius V, who was hundreds of miles away at the Vatican, is said to have gotten up from a meeting, went over to a window, and exclaimed with supernatural radiance: “The Christian fleet is victorious!” and shed tears of thanksgiving to God. – EWTN library
The Battle of Lepanto was first celebrated liturgically as “Our Lady of Victory,” and was later renamed “Our Lady of the Rosary.”
Aside:to address some of the misinformation out there about Catholics, Catholics do not worship or deify Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. They simply ask her assistance in pleading with her Son Christ, much as a child might ask their mother’s intercession when they ask their father for something. Catholics presume that Christ has a soft spot in His heart for his Mother.
Isn’t the Rosary a repetitive prayer condemned by the Bible?
Pope John Paul II: “The rosary, though clearly Marian in character, is at a heart a Christ-centered prayer. It has all the depth of the gospel message in its entirety. "
No, the Rosary is not simply a repetitive prayer. It is a complex form of meditation, in which many of the events of Christ’s life and passages from the New Testament are contemplated. The Rosary is a prayer that gives structure to the complex series of meditations that are going on in the hearts and minds of those who are reciting the rosary.
The Bible passage most often quoted by those who object to the rosary is Matthew 6:7, which objects to “empty phrases” and to “vain repetitions.” Neither of these applies to the rosary, which is neither empty nor vain. Jesus Christ Himself used serious repetitive prayer during the Agony in the Garden (Matthew 26:39-44) and Christ instructed people to be persistent in their prayer (Luke 18:1-8). More information.
Americans Have Been Praying
Before this Most Recent Effort
Americans have been praying for our government for quite some time now. Many denominations are organizing and praying; please send in prayer programs and references if you want them added to this list. Most of my references are Catholic, since that is what I know best.
Interfaith Novena: – 9 days of interfaith prayer leading up to the June 8, 2012 Stand Up For Religious Freedom rally.
When will the media do their job, report on these national grass roots events, and give poor me a vacation from trying to compensate for their news blackouts?
Hey, Wisconsin State Journal (and all the rest of the media out there): I searched your site for “Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally” and it came up with Your search did not yield any results.
Really. Not surprised.
We’ll include some prayers for conscientious reporting by the U.S. media tomorrow, too.
Hat’s off to some media who do have articles on the Stand Up For Religious Freedom Rallies or Fortnight For Freedom this week:
With the approach of the November 2012 election, things are really heating up.
This promises to be so much more than the usual incumbent election.
Since before 2000, America has been closely divided on some crucial issues, and elections seem to be intensifying in passion.
Divisions are deepening and polarizing, not only between left and right, but are deepening and polarizing within the two major parties, Democrat (Liberal) and Republican (Conservative).
In 2000, we fought over chads.
In 2008, Democrats were floored by Obama’s displacement of Hillary.
In 2010, Wisconsin went Republican, and Governor Walker took charge of making some conservative fiscal changes.
Democrats rebelled; in March of 2011, unions converged on Wisconsin to show their displeasure.
Now, on June 5, 2012, Wisconsin faces the potential recall of a Governor– not for high crimes and misdemeanors– but for fulfilling the conservative fiscal promises he made during his election.
Many view Wisconsin as a preview and as a test of the ability of conservative fiscal policy to solve budget problems while retaining the support of voters as difficult yet responsible sacrifices are shared. What “goes down” tomorrow in Wisconsin is thought to be predictive of the direction soon to be taken by many other states, as well as by the coming Presidential election.
In 2011, President Obama took charge of implementing some liberal fiscal policies, including stimulus and ObamaCare.
This time, Republicans showed their displeasure; not through massive demonstrations, but through the filing of massive legal challenges.
Both parties are split between moderates who wish to continue attempts at compromise with the opposition, and those who are less compromising and believe that the time for stalemate and delay has expired.
The ultimate conflict will be resolved in November, when Americans vote either to keep or to discard President Obama. So far, historically, incumbent Presidents have been unseated by a challenger 10 times.
Division Over What?
The two positions, Liberal and Conservative, are stalemated on several issues for which it is difficult to imagine any compromise:
Economy: the liberal solution, spending, is not compatible with the conservative solution, cutting spending. A compromise, doing nothing, would (duh) do nothing while we watch our economy go down the tubes.
Abortion cannot be legal and illegal at the same time. It cannot be a “right” and murder at the same time.
Marriage cannot be between one man and one woman, while also being between two men or two women. A choice has to be made.
There are numerous additional issues on which now polarized liberal and conservative positions would struggle to find a middle ground.
With the intensification of divisions in the United States, and with escalating pressure for action by elected officials in place of rhetoric, many forecast the coming election to be historically decisive in determining the future direction of the United States.
An increasing number of Americans, myself included, are turning more and more toward conservative approaches for the solution to the nation’s fiscal problems. Gallup polls indicate a rise in conservatism, as did Wisconsin’s “going Republican” in 2010.
Some would like to cast the trend towards conservatism as a panicked regression towards old and foolish policies. Of course, these would be Liberals, or Democrats, who view conservatism with such a negative spin.
Others would argue that the meaning of the word conservative (to conserve, or to save) is the no-brainer solution when resources, including economic resources, are in short supply, as they are today. Of course, these would be Conservatives, or Republicans.
Why Might June be Auspicious?
Few would argue that in times of famine food should be consumed at an increased rate instead of being saved and rationed. For this reason, a shift towards conservatism can only be good in tough economic times.
Generosity to the point of wastefulness characterizes prosperous times, while austere measures, and shared sacrifice characterize austere times.
See Conservative is the New Liberal for a historical discussion of the liberal-conservative shift.
And there do seem to be a number of signs of shift towards conservatism in the works, coming up right now:
Americans are praying in increasing numbers for solutions to our crises and our divisions. Individuals and groups are banding together in interfaith prayer (e.g. the Interfaith Novena to Stop the HHS Mandate) to implore God’s direction and assistance towards justice and wisdom.
Edward Klein’s new book The Amateur has just come out, describing the chaos reigning in the present White House. And no, Edward Klein is not a conservative; he is a liberal career journalist.
New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize winning Op-Ed liberal columnist Maureen Dowd has just turned on President Obama with statements like “The president who started off with such dazzle now seems incapable of stimulating either the economy or the voters.“
June 5, 2012, tomorrow, marks the Wisconsin Recall election, which shows some promise of retaining the tough-love Governor Walker, thus influencing the rest of the country to embrace conservative reforms.
June 8, 2012 brings the Religious Freedom Rally, with participants gathering in 140 cities across America to demand the reversal of the Obama administration’s contraceptive and abortifacient mandates added to ObamaCare.
The Movie 2016, based on the NYTimes best seller by Dinesh D’Souza and produced by Gerald Molen, producer of Schindler’s List, which projects the devastating effects of President Obama’s economic policies on America, and documents Barack Obama’s anti-American anti-colonialist philosophy, will be released in June. America will get a remarkable new perspective on Barack Obama, and what his (until now) baffling agenda might actually reflect.
The end of June (or early July) is the projected release date of the Supreme Court Decision on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare. This decision has the potential for nullifying ObamaCare, which many regard as a fiscal and moral catastrophe.
We Are in the Third Act
Act III comprises the final segment of a classic three act play. It is in the third act that the climax occurs, as well as the denouement, a period of calm at the end of a play where a state of equilibrium returns.
The suspense and the drama are building towards determining America’s future direction as we approach the November 2012 election, and we are in for an exciting June.
Of course, it is my optimistic hope and prayer that June will bring auspicious events, not catastrophic ones.
Time will tell.
On Tuesday, May 29, 2012, Texans held their Republican primary.
Voter turnout was low, about 10%.
Associated Press (AP) announced a projection indicating that Romney had secured at least 97 delegates, bringing him up to the 1144 delegates needed to win the Republican nomination.
Romney made an acceptance speech.
President Obama telephoned Romney to congratulate him.
Assocciated Press Projected a Romney Win; Most Media Sources Parroted the Report
The picture from AP's perspective: Orange=Romney, Green=Santorum, Yellow=Paul, Purple=Gingrich. However, this map neglects the delegates reclaimed recently by Ron Paul's "delegate strategy."
The mainstream and liberal media flocked to repeat and report the AP projected result:
Associated Press Yahoo ABC news
CNN news made an independent estimation (independent of the Associated Press report) indicating a similar conclusion, using the words “unofficially clinched the Republican presidential nomination” Huffington Post
Even some Conservative News sources such as Fox and The Blaze proclaimed the AP estimate, indicating a Romney win.
Other Media More Cautious
The Conservative Drudge Report was strangely silent. Wall Street Journal reported cautiously that “Mitt Romney Tuesday night claimed(my italics) his win in the Texas primary gives him the requisite number of delegates to clinch the Republican presidential nomination.”
Some Reports Question Romney’s and Associated Press’ Claims of Victory
Ben Swann, a Fox News anchor from Cincinnati, Ohio, produced a segment of Reality Check, explaining why he believes that internal tension within the Republican Party may be undermining the security of Romney’s projected victory.
According to Ben Swann’s Reality Check from last week, The Liberty Movement (conservatives who support Ron Paul) is taking over the GOP. On Tuesday, a new segment of Reality Check suggests that the Republican Party might be winning the Texas battle at the moment, but could actually be losing the primary war to conservatives.
More details on Reality Check’s claims will be discussed below; some claim that Ron Paul may have as many as 1,000 delegates going into the Tampa convention, compared with Romney’s present 1,081 delegates (the number of Romney delegates is under dispute, more below).
Fox’s Reality Check is not alone in their suspicions.
Newt Gingrich also acknowledged just last week that Ron Paul is the “biggest danger” for Romney in Tampa. Gingrich pointed out that Paul supporters have gathered an unexpected number of delegates at state Republican conventions recently in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri and Nevada. Apparently, the number of delegates acquired by a candidate continues to change after the primary, with delegates changing allegiance, and Ron Paul is raking them in.
My previous calculations, based on Associated Press data (obtained from Wikipedia through USA Today), indicated that Mitt Romney could not possibly claim the nomination before the Texas primary, and even then, he could only claim it if he got almost all 155 delegates.
Since then, quite a few things have changed, including the fact that Ron Paul is converting delegates who were previously committed to Romney to his own side.
According to present Wikipedia delegate counts (based on month-old AP projections, plus Texas numbers from a website called The Green Papers) , Mitt Romney is still short of 1144 delegates. He has only 1081. The Wikipedia report also neglects the reduction in Romney delegates that would result from Ron Paul’s amassing of delegates.
Where is AP getting it’s most recent numbers from? Why are the new numbers contradicting AP’s numbers from one month ago?
What are AP’s most recent numbers? Wikipedia does not use AP numbers for its Texas update; it is using The Green Papers numbers instead, and AP’s numbers are not in evidence.
How is it possible that Ron Paul seems to be reversing primaries that are already over, and seems to be wining delegates who were previously counted as Romney voters?
Conflicting Reports; Who’s Right and Who’s Wrong?
Media Research Center's Times Square Billboard in New York City
So which is it?
Are Associated Press (and the mainstream media quoting them) and CNN wrong in their projections? Are they trying to influence the election by bluffing?
Does Ron Paul pose a serious threat to Romney as indicated by Fox’s Reality Check, Gingrich’s interview, Wall Street Journal’s caution, Drudge Report’s silence, and my humble calculations?
Is somebody lying and spinning, or is the primary election system so complex that nobody can project results accurately?
The news blackout appears to be aimed at protecting the Obama administration, while continuing attempts to discredit the Catholic Church.
Aside:Thus continues the now decades-long misrepresentation of the Catholic Church abuse sandal. In actual fact, the Catholic Church has the lowest frequency of offense towards children on earth. Children are at greater risk of abuse in their own homes and in public schools than they are, or have ever been, in the Catholic Church.
Credibility of the Mainstream Media
Back to the point – should we be considering an Associated Press and mainstream media attempt to spin reporting on the Republican primary?
Do liberals have a preference for running against Romney, versus running against one of the more conservative alternative candidates?
What is AP’s history on the Republican primary?
Has AP been wrong before?
The answer to all of these questions is yes.
Liberals do have a preference for running against Romney, they believe he is easier to defeat than the other candidates.
AP has called results prematurely in the Republican primary
AP has been wrong before
Most importantly, the media has even shown a willingness to participate in a news blackout, when that is advantageous to the far left and to the Obama administration.
Now, the Associated Press is making projections that do not jive with the estimates of others, nor with their own previous estimates. They seem to be favoring Romney.
Fox’s Reality Check (quoted below) seems to believe that AP estimates of Romney’s delegate counts are wildly misleading.
Even Wikipedia’s charts of delegate counts don’t seem to be updated to reflect conservative changes that have occurred during the past month. Additions to Romney’s delegate count acquired in Texas are updated on Wikipedia, quoting the amateurish The Green Papers website’s numbers, but whole statemajorities acquired by Ron Paul and acknowledged by Newt Gingrich are absent from the Wikipedia charts.
Considering the total news blackout last week, in which ABC and NBC failed to mention the story of the decade (concerted legal attack on the Obama administration by Catholic organizations), the mainstream media can no longer be relied upon to give unbiased facts on the 2012 election. We, as citizens, are back to knowing very little about what is going on in our nation—two hundred years ago this was limited by the speed of the pony express; today, this is due to intentional news blackouts and manipulation of information by radical media.
Fox’s Reality Check, Gingrich, and Ron Paul’s people – Ron Paul is Still Collecting Delegates at a Striking Rate
The fact is, this is a remarkably unusual election. Our nation is divided, not by economic status, not by gender or by race, but we are divided by philosophy. Liberal versus Conservative.
And the balance between liberals and conservatives is changing.
This trend has been evident for a very long time. The closeness of the 2000 election with counting of chads, as well as the unexpected unseating of Hillary Clinton by Obama were indications of division and of close competitions which are full of surprises. Wisconsin’s going Republican in 2010 was an indication that shift toward conservatism may be occurring. Recent Gallup polls confirm this shift.
The two positions, Liberal and Conservative, are stalemated on several issues for which it is difficult to imagine any compromise:
Economy: the liberal solution, spending, is not compatible with the conservative solution, cutting spending. A compromise, doing nothing, would (duh) do nothing while we watch our economy go down the tubes.
Abortion cannot be legal and illegal at the same time. It cannot be a “right” and murder at the same time.
Marriage cannot be between one man and one woman, while also being between two men or two women. A choice has to be made.
There are numerous additional issues on which now polarized liberal and conservative positions would struggle to find a middle ground.
According to Reality Check , even the Republican Party is now divided. There appears to be struggle between Republican National Committee (RNC) leadership and a collection of conservatives whom it is difficult to label, but who seem to be rallying behind Ron Paul. Ron Paul is amassing the support of delegates at a striking rate; there is reason to believe that Ron Paul has 1,000 delegates supporting him already. Reality Check calls these Ron Paul supporters the Liberty Party, but I suspect that this group includes a much wider spectrum of conservative people.
Ron Paul Supporters
Ron Paul’s supporters have been dismissed in the past, because of his minority following and because of some extreme policies. But now the numbers of supports that Ron Paul is claiming are growing, and the RNC seems to be evading the obvious question; where are all these Ron Paul supporters coming from?
Previously, I was never a Ron Paul supporter. As a conservative I now support some of Ron Paul’s policies, but consider some of his positions as dangerously naïve; particularly his attitudes towards foreign policy, defense budget, and legalization of drugs.
However, the more I learn about Romney, I begin to see myself rallying behind Ron Paul in preference to Romney, when my top two preferences seem unlikely to be available (Santorum and Gingrich).
Why don’t some trust Romney?
Romney has no established philosophy driving his politics. His philosophy, if any, appears to be utilitarian; it changes according to convenience and to circumstances. His commitment to truth or to Judeo-Christian morality is not clear.
Journalist Daniel Gross sees Romney as approaching politics in the same terms as a business competing in markets, in that successful executives do not hold firm to public stances over long periods of time, but rather constantly devise new strategies and plans to deal with new geographical regions and ever-changing market conditions. Political profiler Ryan Lizza notes the same question regarding whether Romney’s business skills can be adapted to politics, saying that “while giving customers exactly what they want may be normal in the corporate world, it can be costly in politics”. Writer Robert Draper holds a somewhat similar perspective: “The Romney curse was this: His strength lay in his adaptability. In governance, this was a virtue; in a political race, it was an invitation to be called a phony.” Writer Benjamin Wallace-Wells sees Romney as a detached problem solver rather than one who approaches political issues from a humanistic or philosophical perspective. Journalist Neil Swidey views Romney as a political and cultural enigma, “the product of two of the most mysterious and least understood subcultures in the country: the Mormon Church and private-equity finance,” and believes that has led to the continued interest in a 1983 episode in which Romney kept his family dog on the roof of his car during a long road trip. Political writer Joe Klein views Romney as actually more conservative on social issues than he portrayed himself during his Massachusetts campaigns and less conservative on other issues than his presidential campaigns have represented, and concludes that Romney “has always campaigned as something he probably is not.”
Romney has changed his positions on abortion and on government health care. Both of these are major issues in this election, and both have a huge impact on the economy. Whether Romney’s changes in philosophy are genuine and permanent, or whether they reflect a willingness to alter his beliefs pragmatically over time, remains to be seen.
After four years of President Obama’s drifting and reversals, I would consider the choice of a Presidential candidate who has a history of flip-flopping, evolving, etch-a-sketching, or whatever you want to call it, simply irresponsible. There is a chance that Romney’s conversions (on ObamaCare and on abortion) are genuine, but the risk that they are not genuine is too large to take. Mitt Romney is still the only Republican candidate on the ballot who has refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony Presidential Pro-Life Pledge.
If we elect Romney, we could have another Obama on our hands, who promises one thing, then delivers something quite different.
Reversals on ObamaCare and on abortion by Romney would be catastrophic – not only on the “social” front, but on the economic front as well. Socialized medicine and the killing of future citizens by abortion would have an equally devastating effect on the economy of the nation as they would have on the nation’s morality.
Flip-flopping, evolving, and etch-a-sketchingare not the marks of a candidate for President of the United States.
Flip-flopping, Evolving, Etch-a-Sketching: not good marks of a President
They are the marks of confusion at best, and the marks of a liar, at worst.
Who Would Support Ron Paul over Romney?
Above were the reasons why I would support Romney only after every other possibility has been exhausted for Republican nomination. All three, Gingrich, Paul and Santorum, have established a more consistent conservative record of supporting Judeo-Christian morality (and the economic prosperity which this morality fosters) than has Mitt Romney. And I don’t think that I am so unique. In fact, although I have never joined the Tea Party or participated in their functions, I typify quite closely the average Tea Party member.
Many conservatives, whether fiscal, social, or religious conservatives, could conceivably be persuaded to support Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich, or Rick Santorum for these reasons over Romney. Tea Party, Evangelicals, and Catholics are just a few of the conservative groups who might likely support Ron Paul over Mitt Romney.
If the eccentric and perseverant Energizer Bunny calling himself Ron Paul, the medical doctor who opposes abortion and who has personally delivered over 4,000 babies in his lifetime, continues to amass delegates to support him, and if he makes it to the Republican Convention in Tampa in August, there could be some big surprises occurring at that convention.
My knowledge of the very complex electoral process is not sufficient to forecast whether Santorum or Gingrich will go to the convention and be listed on the ballot as well as Ron Paul. But Ron Paul is now almost sure to be there. In fact, his supporters have already organized a massive 3-day party, to be attended by 40,000 to 100,000 people, including as much as 1,000 delegates supporting Ron Paul, in Florida immediately prior to the Tampa convention.
The RNC is Worried
Delusional speculations, you may be thinking?
Well, the RNC appears to be worried about these possibilities, too.
The Massachusetts RNC leadership is apparently sufficiently worried about Ron Paul’s growing popularity that it is threatening delegates that they must sign an affidavit that they will vote for Romney on the first round of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, or be charged with perjury. They would not be threatening delegates and creating last minute busy-work if there was no danger to their RNC establishment’s agenda.
This does not make it look like Ron Paul is a harmless eccentric, or that Mitt Romney has the nomination bagged.
How Can Delegate Counts Be Reversed?
How can Ron Paul be reversing primary election results, and why is the media failing to acknowledge recent reversals?
Apparently, Ron Paul has discovered a strategy that circumvents the Republican establishment, and endeavors to facilitate a conservative takeover of the Republican party. The strategy is called the “delegate strategy,” it seems to be working. It involves focusing campaign efforts on the ability to win over state delegates, rather than winning the popular vote.
Instead of focusing on getting the votes of voters at primaries, Ron Paul focuses on getting the votes of the delegates who are elected at state conventions and caucuses, typically a couple of weeks after the primary.
Ron Paul supporters use an extensive grass roots campaign network to influence local officials, who then influence higher-up officials. Basically, delegates are persuaded to switch their vote to Ron Paul weeks after the popular vote at the primary, and this essentially reverses the effect of the primary.
For example, take the state of Massachusetts. Just like in Texas tonight, Romney won the popular vote there. But in the congressional district caucuses, where the delegates are actually chosen, Mitt Romney, despite having been Governor of that state, was embarrassed, when during the district caucuses, Ron Paul supporters took 16 of 19 delegate slots. In doing so, the Boston Globe reports that those Paul supporters, they beat out major names in the Massachusetts Republican Party. Including state house minority leader, Bradley Jones Jr., Kerry Healey, the former Lieutenant Governor, Sheriff Frank Cousins of Essex County, and Republican’s most recent nominee for governor, Charles D. Baker.
This strategy is discussed further by Chris Miles at policymic. Chris Miles concludes: “Boom, Ron Paul’s system looks like it is working.”
How Many States and How Many Delegates Does Ron Paul Now Have?
The Republican race is not won through a series of state primary contests. It’s won by accumulating delegates at state conventions, which typically occur a few weeks after the state primary contests.
In the states where the primaries are over, Ron Paul is winning large numbers of delegates, leading to massive fights at State Conventions across the country. It’s also leading to many new people taking over the GOP leadership in these states, and those people happen to be Paul supporters. That has also led to Governor Romney creating a shadow party in some of these states. This reflects the intensity of the competition that is raging in the Republican Party, all the while unreported by the liberal Mass Media, who would love to help push Romney as the candidate Obama will oppose.
What are the rules?
Are delegates in the Republican Party bound to vote for a specific candidate, as determined by the popular vote of the Primary?
Or is the popular vote an advisory one?
According to the 2008 Rules of the Republican Party, 25% of delegates are unpledged and are free agents at the convention (this year in Tampa) These include party officials such as the party chair or national party committee members. But 75% of delegates are pledged delegates, indicating that they are “bound” by the popular vote from the primary.
However, the Legal Counsel for the RNC made a ruling in 2008 that ‘The RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.’” This statement allows all delegates to be free agents, voting for whomever they choose.
So there is a contradiction.
It is not clear how this dispute will play out.
For comparison, Newt Gingrich’s delegates are still bound to vote for Gingrich in Tampa. Newt has the option to release his delegates to vote for Romney as he wishes. But his delegates will be bound to vote either for Gingrich or for Romney in the first two ballots of the Republican convention in Tampa. If there are more than two rounds, they are free to vote for any candidate. Incidentally, Newt Gingrich has not yet released his delegates to vote for Romney in Tampa.
SO: the rules are not yet clear. This is going to be an exciting summer and an exciting convention.
Has This Ever Been Tried Before?
I’ve discussed the Harding election previously, in which Harding went into the Convention with only 20% as many delegates as his opponent had. However, since no delegate had the required 51% (1144) at first, several rounds of voting took place. Eventually, Harding ended up winning the nomination and then winning the election to become President.
I am not sure how the details of the primary worked out, but the fact is that when candidates do not have the requisite 51% (today 1144) delegates before the convention, a brokered convention is held, and some big surprises can surface after several rounds of voting.
This system was wisely put in place to create a process of elimination, so that when there are numerous candidates, as there are in 2012, and not one of them gets 51% of the vote, a minority leader does not end up leading the United States as President. A “brokered” convention steers a process of repeated voting and elimination, which culminates in a candidate who is supported by at least 51% of the U.S.
At present, Romney is still short of 1144 delegates by many estimates. Even AP’s estimates make assumptions and guesses about delegates who are not bound (at least 25% or more of them are not bound), and then even bound delegates are no longer bound after two rounds of voting if more than one candidate enters the convention. With Ron Paul’s number of delegates rapidly growing (and thus Mitt Romney’s number of delegates rapidly shrinking, something that AP does not seem to have acknowledged yet), the numbers are in such a flux in 2012 that it is difficult to make any projections at all.
How Many Delegates Still Up For Grabs?
According to the Wikipedia charts (from USA Today, AP and The Green Papers), this is the present estimated delegate count:
Note: If Ron Paul continues to succeed in winning delegates who were previously though to be “bound,” all of the above AP numbers become meaningless. Note also, that the total of delegates still to be determined by the primary votes from the above table is 359, while the AP estimates from table before that listed 537 as still to be determined.
The Final Outcome
The outcome of this primary – Romney versus a much more conservative candidate like Gingrich, Paul or Santorum – could have a powerful impact on the future of the United States. There is reason for concern. Romney is not similar to the other 3 remaining candidates, and a Romney presidency could be much different than what the conservatives who elect him might imagine. In some ways, Romney has the potential to “evolve” or to reverse himself almost as badly as Obama has done during the course of the last four years.
If all this speculation by Fox’s Reality Check, by Newt Gingrich, by Ron Paul and his supporters, and by me turns out to be mistaken, Mitt Romney will have the nomination, and he will run against Obama for President. In that case, he will have my vote. That is the highest probability scenario.
But if reports of a power struggle in the RNC between moderates and conservatives are correct, there is not only a good chance that Ron Paul’s name will be on the ticket at Tampa, but there is also a good chance that a large number of conservative delegates (previously Santorum and Gingrich supporters) might join him. If Ron Paul’s “delegate strategy” turns out to be legitimate and successful, Ron Paul could even defeat Romney.
With the present NEWS BLACKOUT orchestrated by the liberal media, this primary may not be over until the Republican Convention in Tampa (August 27 – August 30, 2012) is over.
Is the Republican Primary Over?
No, it’s Not Over Yet
Does Mitt Romney Have the Nomination?
No, Mitt Romney Doesn’t Have the Nomination Yet
The President Can Issue Unilateral Mandates Mandate
The Let’s Sneak Abortion into ObamaCare While Nobody’s Looking Mandate
Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York, President of the USCCB
The recent conflict, which erupted between President Obama and the Catholic Church in March 2012, over Obama’s insertion of a “Contraceptive Mandate” into ObamaCare, has raised a number of important questions.
We will explore below, how this actually represented an attempt by the Obama administration to sneak in control measures over the American population into previously passed legislation, while using the age-old distraction tactics practiced by movie villains and by villains in real life.
When in previous American history has a President included new mandates (dictates, as in dictatorship) into legislation that has already been passed?
When in previous American history has an administration required all Americans to purchase a product, which is controlled by the federal government?
When in previous American history has a President violated, by issuing his own mandate, the mandate of the First Amendment which 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. ?
What does the Obama Administration Want?
The Obama Administration clearly wants a federal health care system, ObamaCare.
They also clearly support abortion.
They have a record of promoting gay “rights,” for example in the military.
Clearly, the Obama Administration has a radical liberal agenda.
But there’s an obstacle.
It’s called democracy.
America is mostly conservative (Gallup 2012: 40% Conservative, 30% moderate, and 21% liberal). Gallup: Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
So voting, or democracy, will not work in furthering the Obama administration’s radical agenda.
However, establishing the right of a President to mandate stuff would work much better. That way, you don’t have to mess with getting the people’s approval.
So President Obama wants to exert more control over American citizens.
He wants to establish the right to issue mandates unopposed.
He wants to issue mandates favoring his favorite causes; government health care, abortion and gay “rights” are included.
Who stands in his way?
Christians. (80% of America)
Which Christian denomination has the most members in the U.S.?
Which Chirstian denomination has the biggest national organization/communication network in place?
So What’s the Battle Plan?
If you could issue a mandate, while creating a diversion so nobody notices it, and weaken your biggest opponent in the process, wouldn’t that be a brilliant plan?
Yes, and that is exactly what the Obama administration has attempted.
You issue a mandate that forces U.S. Citizens to do something.
Pick something that would weaken your biggest opponent; something that will weaken Catholics.
Something that will either make them surrender their beliefs to comply, or close most of their largest institutions if they cannot comply .
AND, find something on which the Church is divided, so there is confusion in the ranks when the attack occurs.
Yes, we have it!
Require that the Catholic Church pays for Contraception.
What a brilliant plan; that covers all the bases.
For good measure, make sure you catch them unprepared.
Invite them into the White House, assure them that their rights and liberties are foremost in your agenda, and send them home satisfied that they do not have to prepare for a fight. That way, when your announcement comes, it will be a surprise attack and they will not be prepared.
The Distraction Tactics
By introducing contraception, you divert discussion to an inflammatory side issue.
By attacking conservative political pundits who discuss the issue publicly, you distract the American public from the real issues: Presidential proclamations (mandates) and violations of religious freedom.
How Obama Implemented the Plan
This is exactly what happened.
President Obama invited the President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to the White House, assured USCCB President/now Cardinal Dolan that he will respect the rights of Catholic institutions, and invited President Dolan to relay the message to all the other bishops. The Wall Street Journal interview in which Cardinal Dolan describes the November 2011 Oval Office meeting included the following excerpt:
“I [Cardinal Dolan] said, ‘I’ve heard you say, first of all, that you have immense regard for the work of the Catholic Church in the United States in health care, education and charity. . . . I have heard you say that you are not going to let the administration do anything to impede that work and . . . that you take the protection of the rights of conscience with the utmost seriousness. . . . Does that accurately sum up our conversation?’ [Mr. Obama] said, ‘You bet it does.’”
The archbishop asked for permission to relay the message to the other bishops. “You don’t have my permission, you’ve got my request,” the president replied.
Then the axe fell at the end of January, when President Obama declared that the contraception mandates would remain in place and no religious exemptions would be granted to the Catholic Church.
Details of the deception can be found in the Wall Street Journal Interview and in the FOX video Interview of Cardinal Dolan. Of course, the Cardinal refrains from calling the President a liar and shows utmost respect for the office of the Presidency. But the interviews expose the facts, which we can evaluate ourselves and determine whether intentional deception was part of the plan.
Imagine inviting the head of the Catholic Church to the Oval Office 3 months in advance of issuing the Contraception Mandate, and assuring him, and inviting him to inform all United States Bishops that President Obama is very serious about the protection of the rights of conscience of Catholics, then issuing mandates violating those rights. That took some premeditated planning.
A Double Standard
The Amish have an exemption to ObamaCare
Religious exemptions have been granted to various groups on various issues at President Obama’s discretion; exemptions to Native Americans to kill eagles for religious ceremonies (for which the U.S. government facilitates and stores feathers and eagle body parts at taxpayer expense), as well as exemptions for Amish (as well as Muslims and Christian Scientists) from ObamaCare
After Cardinal Dolan and the Catholic Bishops stood up to the President’s Contraceptive Mandate, President Obama pretended to compromise, by requiring the insurance company to pay for the free contraceptives, and claiming that the Catholic Institutions will not have to pay for the free contraceptives (andabortifacients and sterilizations) which violate the moral beliefs of Catholics. (See how abortion got snuck in there, oh, so subtly!)
"We Inside Yet?"
Never mind that most Catholic Institutions are self-insured or employ Catholic insurance companies, so Catholics are still being forced to pay for immoral services.
Never mind that Obama did not even speak with the head of the US Catholic Church, Cardinal Dolan, before making this final pronouncement.
Never mind that President Obama has surrounded himself with “Catholics” in name only in an effort to legitimize his proclamations (Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius and Sister Carol Keehan, who have all publicly opposed the Catholic Church’s teachings and policies and are better described as dissidents, not Catholics).
President Obama has challenged the chain of command in the Catholic Church, by choosing to communicate with hand-picked dissidents, then pretending that his has Catholic support. Separation of Church and State? Obama reorganized the chain of command in the Catholic Church!
Summarizing the Attack.
So the President managed to issue his dictatorial command.
He managed to dictate what the Catholic Church must do against their conscience.
With a double standard that was not applied to Native Americans or to Amish.
He also managed to divert the issue from Presidential dictatorial powers and from violation of freedom of religion by the President to national discussion of a topic that is controversial in the United States; a topic on which more Americans are likely to agree with the President, but which actually has nothing to do with the dictatorial and freedom of religion issues at hand.
The final blow was to attack a popular national conservative spokesman, Rush Limbaugh, when he ridiculed the need for exaggerated quantities of birth control on college campuses. This attack has now morphed into a serious attempt by the left to get Rush Limbaugh’s voice off the airwaves. Wouldn’t that be nice for the President? What about freedom of the press? Hey, the White House can blast the first amendment simultaneously on TWO counts; religious freedom and freedom of speech!
President Obama overstepped his authority, and miscalculated on several fronts.
He miscalculated the courage of the American Bishops.
He miscalculated the gullibility of the American people.
He miscalculated the cost of his bluff.
The American Bishops did not back down, but dug in, in defense of religious freedom in America. Jews and Baptists and many others have joined them. Obama has singlehandedly managed to achieve a unification of Judeo-Christian believers, which we have struggled to accomplish with decades of ecumenical efforts. Now, Rabbis stand up before Senate panels and defend the religious freedom of Catholics.
The American people are jumping ship as well. The Wall Street Journal indicates that Obama has gone too far for most moderates who supported him in the last election. His dictatorial disregard for the religious freedom of Catholics, combined with his cavalier delusional palling around with Russians in front of hot mics in defiance of his electorate, followed by jocular references to the embarrassing mic incident, have been just too much. Peggy Noonan writes, in an article entitled Not-So-Smooth Operator - - “the level of dislike for the president has ratched up sharply the past few months… and it’s his fault, too.”
The cost of Obama’s bluff can also be calculated in dollar terms; some estimate $100 billion costs to the US associated with the closing of Catholic hospitals; others estimate higher. The Fiscal Times writes : “it would create a disaster for the delivery of health care in the country, and rapidly escalate the public costs of health care.
So, Catholics vs. Obamacare is NOT About Birth Control
The mainstream press keeps telling us that the struggle of Catholics vs. ObamaCare is about birth control. This is partly ineptitude, partly an effort to depict the controversy as irrelevant, since Catholics use contraceptives at almost the same rate as the general population. And, consciously or not, this ordinary bit of journalistic malpractice pins an anti-contraceptive label on Republicans in an election year.
Leo also discusses Jean Bethke Elshtain’s theories on establishment pressure, called “liberal monism:”
Liberal monism refers to the fact that those who talk the most about diversity and pluralism are often the most willing to mandate that all private and religious institutions conform to one ideological framework, theirs.
Why Would an American President Intentionally Sow Division in the Nation?
Some shocking new theories are surfacing to explain President Obama’s agenda.
Obama does not seem to adhere to the American Dream of our Founding Fathers.
He does not seem to adhere to the Dream of Martin Luther King, Jr., of a society which does not judge by the color of the skin but by the content of the character, and in which the sons of former slaves and slave-owners can sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
Dinesh D’Souza, the President of the King’s College in New York, an Indian born in Mumbai who came to America and profited from the American Dream, proposes a theory that Barak Obama does not adhere to the American Dream, nor to Martin Luther King Jr.’s Dream, and not even to American liberalism, which seeks to take money from rich Americans and redistribute to poorer Americans, but adheres instead to a concept many Americans are not familiar with, anti-colonialism.
Anti-colonialism is an angry attitude found in some places across the globe, in which America’s success is viewed not as a product of America’s moral and religious hard work ethic, but as a product of imperial exploitation of other nations. An exploitation by America which needs to be reversed and to be “atoned for” at any cost. An attitude fueled more frequently by envy, than by fact. A philosophy that seeks to take America down a few pegs, not build her up.
An anti-colonial President would not have America’s best interests at heart, but would be more devoted to taking America down a few pegs. A President who would serve as Judge, Jury and Executioner of the American people. A President who would gladly violate his oath of office to defend the Constitution, because he has “higher” loyalties. A president who is a traitor. A President who does not adhere to an absolute morality. A President who believes that the ends justify the means, and any means toward humbling America is justifiable.
Whether there is any truth to D’Souza’s theories about Barak Obama’s destructive agenda for our nation, we can examine for ourselves by reading Obama’s autobiography, Dreams From My Father, and by watching D’Souza’s movie, 2016, produced by the producer of Schindler’s List, Jurassic Park and Brave Heart, and which will be released in June, 2012. The trailer for the movie, followed by a 12-minute background presentation by Dinesh D’Souza has been viewed by almost 1 million people on You Tube already.
Time will tell, and President Obama’s actions will tell, whether there can be even a shred of truth in D’Souza’s claims.
The Triple Mandate
Speculations on Barak Obama’s motivations for Issuing what is now commonly known as the Contraception Mandate aside, it is important to realize that whatever the motivations, the contraception mandate is actually a triple mandate, and is much more important than simply a contraception mandate.
Obama’s Mandate is actually the: No Religious Freedom Mandate and The President Can Issue Unilateral Mandates Mandate and The Let’s Sneak Abortion into ObamaCare While Nobody’s Looking Mandate
This Mandate Cannot Stand
Whether this Triple Mandate is taken down by the Supreme Court decision to be released in June on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare, or whether this mandate is considered separately by the Supreme Court under religious freedom violation considerations, or whether the November 2012 election removes President Obama from office and replaces him with someone who will steer us in a different direction, the Triple Mandate cannot stand.
If it does, we are in the U.S.S.R. We have opened the doors wide for communism under which the State has most power, in the place of democracy, under which the individual has most power:
The government will tax and hold all the money.
The government will decide who can have money and how much and when.
The government will decide who can have health care and who cannot.
There will be little free enterprise.There will be lots of black market.
There will be little religious freedom.
Churches will be marginalized.
Religion will be eliminated from education
Conservative thought will be declared bigoted and illegal.
Mandating (dictating) will determine what we can and cannot do.
Mothers will probably be required to work outside the home.
Children will probably be required to attend school, like in Germany today.
Schools will probably be required to teach mandatory radical liberalism.
Home schooling will probably be outlawed.
Children will probably be encouraged/required to report on parents who stray from the compulsory New Order.
It’s happened more than once during the past 100 years.
My parents lived through it.
Pope Benedict lived through it.
My grandparents were sent to Siberia for 20 years under the USSR.
People can recognize the signs, and the Contraception Mandate is certainly a big one.
What makes you think that the US is immune to despots who want to eliminate democracy and freedom, and who want to control our nation, instead of being accountable to it’s people, as the Constitution was designed to ensure?
Could the fact that 47% of America already pays no federal tax and many live off government handouts, be part of a devious plan calculated purposely to ensure the dependence (and the votes) of numerous people on radical government
Obama has already taken the next step today.
Remember the division of powers in the U.S. Constitution which sets up a system of “checks and balances,” and prevents one branch of the government from exercising too much power? The balance between the Executive Branch, the Legislature and the Judiciary that we all learned about in grammar school?
Previoiusly, Obama, the Executive, commandeered the Legislature’s approval for ObamaCare in 2009 by lying to Stupak and “stealing” the votes of the legislature with false promises.
Syte Reitz grew up in Queens, New York, in a family of Lithuanian immigrants who fled Nazi and Soviet domination during World War II. Her education includes a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, and post-doctoral work at Princeton University. Syte left her job as an Assistant Professor at Oakland University, Michigan, to devote herself to raising her children, and ultimately homeschooled them through the end of high school. She is a member of Madison's Cathedral Parish.