Syte Reitz

Liberals and conservatives might both be surprised to read in the World Book Encyclopedia that “liberalism is a confusing term, because its meaning and emphasis have changed considerably over the years.” The definition of liberalism has shifted dramatically over the past several centuries. (1)

Fundamentally, liberalism is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes freedom, equality, and opportunity. However, freedom can be understood in more than one way, with the emphasis either on freedom from specific restrictions, or emphasis on the freedom to have opportunities. (1)

The liberalism exemplified by the revolutions of the 18^th century (American, French) emphasized curtailing the ability of governments to restrict the individual freedoms of citizens. In the 21^st century, however, liberalism has come to mean the use of government to assure many opportunities for some citizens at the expense of other citizens.

These two perspectives on freedom are at odds with each other. The more a nation frees itself from governmental restriction of citizens, the more the number of government-created opportunities shrink. Conversely, the more government “guarantees” or creates opportunities, the more mandatory restrictive legislation (which encroaches on individual rights) must be passed.

Never has this been more obvious than in the present Obama administration. Present day liberal Democrats seem to define freedom primarily in terms of access to opportunities – such as health care, education, immigration, and sexual freedom. However, as more legislation is passed to guarantee these “freedoms,” more money must be spent, and those footing the bill become more irate and feel less and less “free.” The liberalism of 2010 boomerangs, and begins to be viewed as tyranny by citizens who must pay the taxes.

In 2010, 47% of Americans will not pay any income tax at all. These non-tax-paying Americans collect numerous benefits and are entitled to numerous opportunities. Credits for middle-income families have grown so much that millions of people earning more than twice the poverty wage pay no federal taxes at all. The remaining 53% of Americans, who are actually paying the bills for the benefits, and whose taxes are rising astronomically, feel that they have lost their freedom, the freedom to enjoy the fruits of their labor, their paycheck. Thus, the Tea Party movement is born, and citizens who were previously politically unengaged decide “enough is enough,” and band together and rebel to win freedom from excessive taxation and governmental control. Liberal attempts to increase freedom boomerang and result in decreased freedom for many, as well as encroachment on the right to own property.

Liberalism in the extreme can also encroach on freedom of religion. The bill-paying half of the American population is now forced to pay for services which they consider to be morally reprehensible — abortion, contraception, and state-mandated Planned Parenthood sex education (or promiscuity education!) in public schools. When 67% of our citizens oppose the government funding of abortion, but they are forced to pay the taxes which provide abortion for others, it becomes difficult to call this liberalism—instead, it resembles totalitarianism.

Now, it becomes the conservatives who must become the revolutionary activists and must lobby for change. They are lobbying for liberation from oppressive taxation and oppressive legislation. Thus, in 2010, the conservatives have become the new “liberals.”

This system reversal has a darker side, too – the more unrestricted “freedoms” become guaranteed for all (such as free health care), the higher the cost, and ultimately, rationing becomes a necessity, as admitted by President Obama . Ironically, the initial goal of the government health care plan was to include all, not to ration health care. But now, rationing will simply change which group must forgo health care—for example, shifting from the jobless doing without health care, to the aged forgoing health care.

Escalating costs of health care also motivate modern “liberals” to use distorted logic. The Speaker of the House recently represented abortion as cost-saving— saving the cost of birthing, raising and educating extra human beings. However, the killing of preborn humans is suicidal for our society, and extreme liberals do not seem to realize that a future without children is a future without workers and without tax revenue.

Ultimately, “freedom” is an elusive commodity, and what creates freedom in one sphere generally also reduces freedom in another sphere. It is not possible to guarantee all freedoms for all people at all times, since our freedoms impinge on each other. As the two factions of our society battle out their preferred freedoms, the pendulum of history (and of the definition of liberty and of liberalism) swings back and forth and makes adjustments.

In 2010, by my estimate, we have gone full swing.

Conservative is the new liberal!

(1) World Book Encyclopedia, 75^TH ed., s.v. “Liberalism.”

In defense of the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion–

has created an online campaign to collect signatures.

So far, 247 United States religious leaders , including 55 Roman Catholic Bishops (Bishop Morlino, Bishop Chaput, Archbishop Dolan and others) have signed the Manhattan Declaration.

A total of 467,033 signatures have been collected to date in support of the Manhattan Declaration. Have YOU signed the Manhattan Declaration?

Read the Declaration

Sign the Declaration

Anti-Catholicism is the last politically correct prejudice still unquestioned in America.

For fear of lawsuits and reprisals, Madisonians have stopped challenging most groups on exercising their freedom of choice – they do not challenge racial groups, non-Catholic religious groups, or ethnic groups for their choices and lifestyles.

Why do you expect Catholics to defend their choices and beliefs? We do not attack you demanding you to defend why you like to go to the Overture Center, the Chazen Museum, the Capitol Building, or to Taste of Madison.

Some of the criticisms of the Catholic Church in Wisconsin State Journal discussion are preposterous.

• Madison’s Capitol building is very grand and imposing, as are numerous affluent banks around the Capitol Square and the Overture Center. Yet some suggest that Catholic Churches in Madison are too extravagant. Catholic Churches are very humble by comparison. Apparently you respect government, money and entertainment sufficiently to tolerate imposing accommodations for these activities, but you want to require people who hold God in high esteem to grovel in humble surroundings.
• There is a similar double standard in the criticism of statues in Catholic Churches. The display of photos in one’s living room, of paintings in the Chazen Museum, and of portraits and statues in government buildings seems to be acceptable in Madison, yet when the Catholic Church honors the memory of important people with paintings and statues, suddenly you decide that this constitutes idolatry.
• Finally, the portrayal of the Catholic Church as an institution laden with money is completely false. The Diocese does not receive one penny from Rome, nor is Rome wealthy (except for the value of her “Capitol building,” which requires maintenance, just as Madison’s does). Those who sue the Catholic Church are suing the Madison citizens in the pews today. When Diocesan coffers are depleted by lawsuits, the same critics attack the Church for insufficient charitable service to Madison (which still exceeds the charitable service provided by the City of Madison).

This double standard constitutes bigotry and generates false and vile urban myths about Catholicism.

“Not a hundred people in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is.”

-Bishop Fulton J Sheen

The phrase “feminism” is bandied about quite freely by liberals, who feel entitled to define the identity of women and to declare what is best for all of them.

As a New York City girl starting college in 1969 during the development of Gloria Steinem’s social experiments, I have had a lifetime of opportunity to try those ideas on for size. I can assert from experience that the Gloria Steinem “feminism” falls short, and that in 2010, “feminism” is in dire need of an update.

There is no question that the 1970’s “feminism” brought some refreshing and positive changes to our view of women and their potential role in our culture. Acknowledging that women are equally capable of intellectual achievement as men, changing female fashion to be more practical and less punitive than before ( I’m particularly talking about the shoes!), and giving women more choices in life, were all very positive developments.

However, the “feminists,” in their passion to give women “choices,” actually ended up NOT giving women true choice, but railroaded all women into an alternate role, the radical feminist. The new role was different from the previously defined narrow role, but was just as narrow and just as imperative, as the previous role had been.

The critical error made by the old “feminism” was a failure to recognize what is important to most women – the family. In some (LOL) “ideal” world peopled by perfect and affordable servants, and by men who were more feminine than most actually are, perhaps a woman could pursue an exciting career, find love and family life, and be satisfied with the help she received in raising her family.

But the reality that we young women starkly confronted was that the support for raising one’s family simply did not exist, that most shortcuts were designed to be taken out on the children and on the marriage, and that two careers simply could not be optimized simultaneously.

Feminists became more and more radical in confronting these problems – if the time, care and compromise required by family, husband, and children added strain to a woman’s professional life—the solution was to eliminate them. Divorce skyrocketed, children were aborted, and the most successful females became those like Elena Kagan, who dispensed altogether with husband and family. Simultaneously, depression, health problems, and drug addiction escalated among women.

Some of us, noticing the impossibility of the assignment (superwoman at work and at home), made a “choice” to focus on one job, the home. Like most men, who do not undertake two careers simultaneously—say, lawyer and neurosurgeon – we decided to do one job well rather than to do two jobs poorly.

There was no tolerance in the “feminist” culture for this choice, and the social demotion that accompanied it was blatantly obvious at every social event we attended after making that choice. The previous awed gasps I used to receive when introduced as a biochemistry professor evaporated, and were replace with the “flee the leper” response when I was introduced as a Mom at home.

I am by no means the only woman to have figured this out, although most women “at home” are not too vocal about their choices.

Some women are blessed enough to be able to sustain a career without neglecting their family life – those who have the unusual family support group that, say, Sarah Palin has, and are able to have the best of both worlds.

But regardless of our individual choices, “feminism” is in radical need of an update.

• ALL women’s choices should be welcomed and supported, especially the essential and sacrificial choice of staying and serving at home. This choice is in dire need of recognition and respect.
• A woman’s happiness should NOT be contingent on contraception and abortion. Killing a woman’s children does not liberate her in any way, and does not lead to happiness.
• Women should not be expected to work double time, as most working women do. Actually, many of us at home also work double time, so would that make it triple time?
• People should come to the mature realization that the world is not teeming with eager and perfect servants anticipating the honor of caring for our children at low cost. The care of children is loving, rewarding, sacrificial and demanding work that will NOT be performed adequately by a rotating staff of low-paid child-care providers.

In life, we have to make choices. We cannot have it all. We are forced to indicate with our choices what is most important to us. Good things often have to be relinquished for better things.

Most people, when interviewed at the end of their lives, quote family and friends as their biggest source of joy and satisfaction. Faithful lifelong spouses, children who have made good choices, are much more rewarding and satisfying than a successful career. I have personally derived much more joy and satisfaction from family than from biochemistry research at Princeton University. Few people can have both, and our choices indicate which is most important to us.

Feminism is in dire need of an update – at very minimum, ALL women’s choices, including the choice not to neglect one’s family, must be respected. It’s time we educated our young women to realize the errors of the old feminism and to realize that they WILL have to make some choices—real choices, not radical agenda choices like abortion, which only serve to hurt everyone.

“Choice” cannot be so narrowly defined as to include only the killing of one’s child. Judging from women like Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and numerous others, the new feminism has arrived, new “choices” are becoming possible, and the old radical feminists are faltering on their way out.

Watch out, here comes November!

An unelected board of retired judges (Governmental Accountability Board, GAB, appointed by Gov. Doyle) has issued a ruling that restricts the dissemination of voter information for 30 days prior to primary elections (starting Aug 15th) and for 60 days prior to general elections (starting Sept 4th).

These rules would make it illegal to disseminate information prior to elections without registration with the government, payment of $100 registration fees, and provision of detailed information about the information to be dispersed. This would apply to individuals and to groups, and would affect information distributed by internet as well.

• The new rules would tax and would slow down pre-election activity by pro-life and pro-family organizations, and might limit the ability of bloggers like myself to post election-related information as I am doing now.
• The new rules would affect the various voter guides which have long been planned by pro-life groups.
• The rules would create a government record of all pro-life activity and of individuals who participate in it. The registration would identify, label and tax all activists participating in one of the most important elections in the history of our country — an election which will determine the future of Obamacare, abortion, and health care rationing.

In my opinion, this step is not dissimilar to the Nazi requirement for Jews to wear armbands identifying them. It is a major unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. It taxes and creates a governmental record of all pro-life activity and all who participate in it.

Wisconsin Family Action (WFA) has organized:

• Online petition to protest this ruling
• Phone calls to the Governmental Accountability Board protesting this ruling — Call Kevin Kennedy the director of the GAB at 608-266-8005 and politely tell him to use his influence with the GAB board to urge them to revoke the new rules in §1.28 that unconstitutionally restrict both individual and organizational free speech.
• Requesting $10 donations to WFA to help reverse this ruling.

Please participate and spread the word to all Wisconsin residents!

Two disturbing events this week, involving intolerant and uncivilized attacks on Bishop Morlino of Madison by liberal activists:

• Activists shouting down Bishop Morlino during the “Our Father” at a rally defending marriage

• Front page article attacking Bishop Morlino in a Madison local paper, the Isthmus

Further information:

NOM (National Organization for Marriage) Rally:

National Organization for Marriage (NOM’s) Brian S. Brown describes the intolerant reception and harrassment they have experienced from gay activists on the NOM summer tour of twenty-three cities –includes baiting a 5 yr old child (asking her if she is being raised by her mother to be a bigot), harrassing a nursing mother, and storming the stage and screaming into NOM microphones.

Bishop Morlino’s speech — –Bishop is drowned out and shouted down by gay activists while reminding marriage supporters never to gay-bash, and while leading marriage supporters in the “Our Father.” This video includes police stopping activists from approaching the speaking Bishop. Another video shows a portion of the Bishop’s speech, with gay activists shouting.

Julaine Appling’s speech (Wisconsin Family Action President), harrassed by gay activists.

Senator Grothman’s speech — also harrassed, points out that no other group shouts down and drowns out other people’s rallies– asks whether the gay activists are afraid that people will hear what the marriage supporters have to say?

EWTN article, “Same-sex marriage backers boo Bishop Morlino’s prayers at Madison rally.”

Isthmus newspaper’s front page attack on Bishop Morlino:

Isthmus attacks Bishop Morlino, and local Catholics defend him in online discussion …a paid atheist participates and loses the debate.

Te Deum Laudamus analyzes the Isthmus article.

Eponymous Flower writes “Liberals hate Bishop Morlino of Red Madison, WI.”

Eucharistic Adoration for Priests mentions the Isthmus attack and Quotes Bishop Morlino’s endorsemnent Rosary for the Bishop , of prayer for Bishops.

Gay blogger discusses whether Gay intimidation of marriage supporters would have been more effective if they had used silent intimidation in place of booing and shouting.

Sign up to support Bishop Morlino with a monthly rosary.

Sign up to add your name to Bishop Morlino supporters online.

.