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:
CR wrote:
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…
Syte’s response:
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.
Obama Mandates
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.)
Background
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.
Women’s Issue?
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!?
Obama’s strategy
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
When and Where?
Starting Tomorrow!
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has organized a national 2-week prayer effort, the Fortnight for Freedom, which starts tomorrow, June 21st, 2012. It begins on the feasts of St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher, who gave their lives for religious freedom. The Fortnight for Freedom ends on July 4th, our American Independence Day.
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:
…. mostly religious, small and/or conservative organizations.
.
.
.
.
.
Boo to ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN; 160,000 people have been rallying in 161 cities across the US for religious freedom, and ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN gave us a news blackout.
Expecting a media blackout again for Fortnight for Freedom, but God plans to listen.
Remember: Come to the Fortnight For Freedom, 7PM Thursday, June 21st, 2012, on the State Street steps of Wisconsin’s Capitol Building in Madison!
Added after the event: Some AUDIO resources for those who are interested in understanding what is in the Mandate and why the Catholic Church is concerned:
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).
Division
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.
Historical Election
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.
Conservative Perspective
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.
Throughout all of June, including June 5 in California, Republican primaries continue. Ron Paul continues to make progress toward collecting staggering numbers of delegates after the primaries, with controversial tactics called “delegate strategy,” which is certain at least to shift the Republican Party platform towards more conservatism than a Romney nomination would imply, if not actually threaten the nomination of Mitt Romney.
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
USA Today
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
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?
Catholicism is the largest religious denomination in the United States. 25% of Americans are Catholic. The Catholic Church has accused the President’s administration of violating the First Amendment. Yet the mainstream media is silent.Most Americans do not know that this has happened.
Stand Up For Religious Freedom Rallies to Be Held in 140 Cities June 8, 2012. Will the media report?
This news blackout included total silence by ABC and NBC, and only one 19-second report by CBS, covering the historic “Legal Armageddon.” Instead, the mainstream media focused on smaller events in an attempt to damage the Church’s image, such as dated stories on “predator priests” and reports on the Pope’s valet leaking documents to the press. Twenty Catholic and evangelical leaders joined the Media Research Center (MRC) this week in calling out the networks for ignoring the Obama administration trampling on the First Amendment.
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
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.
Governor Romney is also concerned, and is creating a shadow party in some of the states at issue.
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
and
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.
Background
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.?
Catholics.
Which Chirstian denomination has the biggest national organization/communication network in place?
Catholics.
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.
Cardinal Dolan
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
Further Villainy
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.
O.K.
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.
Ridiculous?
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
Next Step
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.
“President” Cyrus; No Leader In the World is Powerful Enough to Thwart God’s Purposes
or
Bishop Morlino: Difficult Week? Rejoice!
This Week’s Bad News (not reported by mainstream media, of course!):
To start with, this week’s news was less than cheerful for the 80% of us who are Christians:
mandate=dictate
President Obama and his administration continue to mandate (or dictate, as in dictatorship) the ObamaCare Contraception provision by Catholic employers. Many fail to realize that this issue is not about contraception, but about whether a President can mandate ANYTHING, particularly against the religious beliefs of people, like making Jews serve pork. Obama has given Obamacare exemptions to the Amish, and eagle-hunting permits to an Indian tribe in Wyoming based on religious exemptions, but Catholics get an exemption for religious beliefs? No way. They’re just the largest religion in the United States, and 24% of Americans belong.
Catholic Bishops have had to issue another protest, explaining the civil rights violations involved, and requesting dialogue with the Obama administration.
Now Obama’s administration (Department of Health and Human Services, HHS) has added another mandate to ObamaCare, mandate #2 is abortion! Not only will Catholic employers have to pay for abortifacients and contraception, but all Americans will have to pay for abortion. This, despite the fact that 70% of Americans oppose federal funding of abortion, and the fact that we were repeatedly promised by the Obama administration (remember Stupak?) that abortion would not be included in ObamaCare.
Contraception and Abortion added to Obamacare not enough to get you down? HHS has just added mandatory provision of sterilizations for all female college students to ObamaCare, free of charge. Yes, between the ages of 17 and 21, when young women are not yet decided on what they wish to do with their lives, while they are experimenting with decisions and with belief systems at college, let them make the irreversible decision never to have children, so that they could never have the joys of family life or pass on their education to future citizens. Let’s hurry up and sterilize them before they know any better!
Not enough bad news yet? HHS has approved the use of aborted babies’ brains for experimentation in humans. Aborted babies’ brain cells are being injected into people’s eyeballs in an attempt to reverse macular degeneration. Yes, those same elders whom ObamaCare wants to euthanize will now be the beneficiaries of the deaths of pre-born infants. That is, if there is any benefit, and if no monstrous result comes from the experiments.
Global Rule by Mandate Next?
Wait, there’s more! Agenda 21, a United Nations action plan started 20 years ago towards global control of “sustainable development,” a global, national and local plan, is making tremendous strides towards establishing a world government based on environmentalism. To be truthful, this was not this week’s news, but I found out about it from an email this week. Did you know that more thatn 600 American cities are participating in this plan through ICLEI, though most residents of those cities are unaware that their local governments are agreeing to rules and regulations dictated by a UN-based organization regarding property rights? This organization is funded by George Soros, and opposes private property and energy usage, and supports depopulation of the earth. Tenessee has just passed a bill in opposition to implementation of Agenda 21. Bill Gates supports the depopulation plans of Agenda 21, pretending to support it with flimsy “science.” Meanwhile, increasing numbers of scientists are calling the population/pollution/CO2 alarmists just plain wrong.
And, just for good measure, let’s add a local Madison scandal into the news cocktail: Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Prosser has just been accused, yet again, of misconduct. All my previous investigations into this issue 9 months ago, including reading the Dane County Sheriff’s report on this incident, indicate to me that this man is an innocent victim of Alinsky tactics, in which Madison liberals are trying to accomplish with false accusations and lies what they could not accomplish in the ballot box last year- to change the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from conservative to liberal.
Is it just me, or are Obama and liberals on all levels, global, national and local, issuing mandates that trample human rights faster than anybody can keep up with them, doing it before the election, and doing it unilaterally? And isn’t Obama forcing America to do to small human beings all that Hitler did to larger human beings, only in far, far larger numbers? See Abortion: a Much Bigger Deal Than You Think.
So What Do We Do?
Rejoice!
So Bishop Morlino’s has a message for all of us: Rejoice!
Rejoice!
He also sends a message to all our families and friends.
As usual, Bishop Morlino is inspiring and he is right.
Summarizing the Bishop’s three major points, which he drew from the Mass readings today:
We should not forget God is in charge and does not discard us. We need to acknowledge our sins; Catholics ought to use the Sacrament of confession.
No earthly leader is powerful enough to thwart God’s purposes. King Cyrus, a pagan who cared nothing for God, was inspired by God to become God’s instrument and to save God’s people.
We , the children of the Light, are attracted to the Light, to the Truth, and we must seek and speak the truth. We must vote, and we must not allow campaign advertising to influence us. Why are we being attacked? Those who want to work evil in darkness need to put out the lights.
These points really do not do justice to the Bishop’s very inspiring homily; nor do I claim to have paraphrased it correctly; you should really read it or listen to it yourself at the above links.
Bishop Morlino has wisely reminded us is that all will work out as it must. We should fret less, trust more, pray more, confess more, sacrifice more this Lent, and rejoice!
We also need to pursue the Truth, share the truth, and vote for the truth.
President Obama does not seem to see the Truth at present.
President Obama is very swiftly mandating dictating what opposes all that America stands for . America was founded on Judeo-Christian values. 80% of us are still Christians, and we still vote Christian values. No number of billions in advertising can sway us. Our future and our souls are not for sale.
Why is he going after Catholics with such determination? He needs to knock out the lights and the video cameras, the conscience of America. Catholics are the Christians with the largest numbers and the biggest organization. If he can knock out Catholics, others will soon follow.
Cyrus Restoring the Vessels in the Temple
Barring a Cyrus-like conversion in President Obama, (which is not completely outside the realm of possibility; remember the Soviet Union?), it is incumbent on us to fix the problem by voting him out of office.
God has actually already achieved through Obama what all us us Christians have not been able to achieve in decades of ecumenical effort: he has galvanized a massive reunion of Judeo-Christian faiths. It warmed my heart to hear a Rabbi defending the freedom of Catholics to exercise their religion before the Senate! Who would have thought that President Obama would do more for ecumenism than we could accomplish ourselves?!
That is the mystery of God, Who works in mysterious ways.
Take heart, and pray, pray, pray.
Fast.
Speak out.
Vote.
Translation of FFRF ‘Quit the Catholic Church” NY Times Ad
or
It’s Not Easy Being Free From Religion
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) published a full-page ad in the New York Times on Friday, March 9, 2012. The ad mocks and demonizes the leadership of the Catholic Church, while inviting “liberal” and “nominal” Catholics to join FFRF.
It begins:
FFRFs New York Times ad, March 9, 2012
.
.
The logic behind spending $52,000 in an attempt to recruit from a group (the Catholic Church) whose beliefs are diametrically opposed to one’s own group’s (radical atheists) is questionable at best. The ad comes across either as an excuse to spew bigoted hate speech and ridicule towards the Catholic Church, or as a sign of desperation and instability in FFRF.
TRANSLATION of the FFRF New York Times ad:
We at FFRF have been laboring for decades (for two generations), trying to wipe out all mention of religion in the United States.
Ours has been a difficult road fraught with obstacles, and progress has been slow.
After all these years, our membership only represents 0.003 of 1% of America’s population.
Even fellow atheists keep their distance from us; only 1 out of 1,000 U.S. atheists have joined us.
Imagine, the other 999 out of 1,000 atheists tolerate Christian America (80% of America), and even join them in the more secular aspects of celebrating their holidays! It makes us sick to our stomachs to watch people buying Christmas trees and buying toys for their children each Christmas.
We valiantly try to spread our creed in any way we can imagine.
We have tried to appeal to people’s intellects, asking them to be “free” thinkers, to question what they are taught and to conclude that we are right; that there is no God.
We have tried to put up golden plaques in State Capitol buildings at Christmas, calling on people to reject gods and to join us in celebrating the pagan Winter Solstice. Unfortunately, no takers. Our Christmas plaques have informed people that their hearts are hardened by religion and that their minds are enslaved by religion. Yet people do not flock to us. They still put up a Christmas tree in the Capitol rotunda that dwarfs our signs by orders of magnitude, and they dare to call it a CHRISTmas tree, as generations of their ancestors have done.
We are working hard to sue Christians who profess their faith publicly, but most of our lawsuits are defeated. People claim that the Constitution guarantees them the freedom to express their religion publicly, not what we claim, the right not to see any religious beliefs expressed anywhere by anybody except us (atheists are classified on most US campuses as religious organizations).
Even the Constitution makes it hard for us; the Founding Fathers used the term freedom OF religion instead of freedom FROM religion. You can’t imagine how hard that makes our battle.
We are a modest outfit, with only 4 employees and a $500,000 per year budget. There is just so much a tiny group can do with that. We are really doing our best. Our staff and budget is smaller than the average Christian Church’s staff and budget in Madison, and we are only one group, contrasted with almost 300 Churches in Madison.
So it’s not easy. We can’t sue everybody. We try to single out small communities with small budgets (like Marshfield, a small WI town that hardly has any cell phone coverage), and we sue them whenever their teenagers try to pray on a sports field or their teachers hang the ten commandments in a hallway. We hope that they will stop expressing their beliefs out of fear of our lawsuit which they cannot afford. That way, we do not have to go to court and risk losing the case, or use up our meager budget. But people have no sympathy for us. They don’t understand our pain. They accuse us of jousting at windmills.
It’s been getting harder and harder. Now more people have noticed what we are up to. Organizations have turned up which help small communities when we try intimidation by litigation. Outfits like the American Center for Law and Justice help the small outfits we try to sue.
Oh, we’ve valiantly tried many things, including suing against the National Day of Prayer. We fought for 3 years, but lost that one. People just seem to insist on praying and praying.
In our desperation, we have turned to ridicule. Last Christmas, we ridiculed the birth of Christ. We put up a fake “Nativity Scene” at the
FFRF's mockery of the Nativity
Wisconsin State Capitol. It was a modest effort, reminiscent of the shoebox dioramas we make in grammar school. But, heck, we don’t have the budget that some of those Christian groups have. Little attention was paid to our ridicule efforts, and nobody flocked to join our creed, which is based on the negation and the ridicule of the beliefs of others. Quite a few Madison bloggers laughed off our efforts — life is so hard when nobody takes you seriously!
Now, we are at our wits’ end over our lack of success in recruiting more than 0.003 of 1% of America to our membership in all these years. Golly, we can’t even expand our ranks biologically; so many of our members do not have children at all, have children who reject our beliefs, or are members who promote and practice abortion. You have no idea how hard it is for an organization to expand amongst radical abortionists!
S0 we had a brainstorm.
We looked for an organization that has it all.
An organization whose creed is followed by the largest number of Americans.
An organization whose membership embraces half the population of Madison.
An organization whose national membership is growing.
An organization which has the best schools in the United States. And the best hospitals. And the best charities.
(Unfortunately, we have no schools or hospitals ourselves. We can’t do everything!)
An organization which encourages having children and is successful in passing on beliefs.
Yes, the Catholic Church!
We will recruit from the Catholic Church!
We will steal members from the Catholic Church!
And what is the best way to do that?
With an ad in the New York Times, of course!
Low budget, of course; remember, we don’t have a big budget.
Like the “Nativity” mocking Christ’s birth, we threw it together ourselves.
Never mind that it’s not very professional.That doesn’t matter.
Never mind that it ridicules a quarter of America.
Never mind that 80% of America is Christian and may not like our tactics.
If we lie enough and ridicule enough, maybe we can steal just 0.025 of 1 % of their membership.
That would double our membership overnight!
Heh, heh, heh, wink, wink, wink, drool, drool, drool, what a great plan!
This will really work!
Our next group to target for ridicule and recruitment will be Islam…
let’s see how that works out…
The Obama administration recently attempted to establish free sterilization, contraception and abortifacients as a “right” which transcends First Amendment rights of freedom of religion. This attempt was challenged by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Background described at A Tale of Two Presidents; President Obama vs. President of the USCCB, Archbishop Cardinal-elect Timothy Dolan.
Obama’s move was particularly shocking, since he had previously and vehemently promised non-inclusion of abortion in ObamaCare. Obama’s present inclusion of abortifacient drugs in ObamaCare, and his insistence on forcing Catholics to pay for them, makes it appear that Obama has no problem with falsification/outright lying.
Baracchio and Timothy Cricket. In the popular children's tale of Pinocchio, Pinocchio fell in with a bad crowd of pleasure-seeking boys. This resulted in their turning into donkeys who would be enslaved by a coachman. Pinocchio's conscience, represented by Jiminy Cricket (played here by Archbishop Timothy Dolan) saves Pinocchio from his bad judgement, and the tale ends happily.
.
Obama’s Latest Move
Now President Obama, without consultation with the US Bishops, has unilaterally announced a “solution” to the conflict between religious and sexual “rights.”
Obama’s “solution” involves side-stepping direct payment for these population-control procedures by Churches, while still requiring Church organizations to provide these services indirectly, and still requiring Catholics and other Christians with religious objections to the procedueres to pay for the procedures indirectly. Essentially, all insurance companies in the U.S. would be required to cover the population-control procedures, and thus all Americans would be required to pay for the procedures, regardless of religious objection, through the insurance policies that citizens must purchase as required by ObamaCare. Escape from payment for morning-after pills and for sterilization of minorities would not be possible without civil disobedience under the currently proposed Obama administration rules.
Will Americans Go For This?
America’s values are still quite conservative; 80% of Americans are religious, 70% are Christian, 2/3 oppose federal funding of abortion and 2/3 favor abstinence before marriage. Obama’s attempts to establish these free sexual services thus represents quite a governmental imposition of unwanted values. The government has essentially declared that all citizens have the right to unlimited promiscuous activity with a guaranteed freedom from consequences, paid for by the government (by all of us).
What the Contraception Mandate (actually Population Control Mandate) Would Mean
The majority will be forced to pay for the injudicious sexual behavior of a minority, without limits.
This does not differ significantly from government encouragement of unlimited gluttony, with guaranteed free liposuction for all.
Or government encouragement of theft, with guaranteed freedom from prosecution for thieves.
The Obama administration has promoted payment for reckless human sexuality to a status of higher importance than providing aspirin to heart patients or insulin to diabetics. Heart patients and diabetics do not get free medication and free surgery without co-pay.
Pregnancy, a normal human condition which is essential to the propagation of the human race, has been promoted to disease status, a disease that trumps all other human diseases, for which free medication and free surgery are not provided.
The Obama administration’s obvious prioritization of population control over freedom of religion, over majority opinion, over political expediency, and over fiscal responsibility, was discussed in detail in Abortion – A Much Bigger Deal Than You Think. The motivation for such extreme population control measures cannot be explained by overpopulation concerns; these do not exist in the United States. If anything, we are short of workers and of taxpayers at the present time. Population control is usually a mark of political tyranny, and has already progressed in the United States to a level that few have noticed and few would find credible. Abortion is by far, the leading cause of death in the United States today, and the black population of America is suffering from it way more than the rest of us. Abortion – A Much Bigger Deal Than You Think
The Future
Obama is pushing an agenda that makes no sense to anyone who is grounded in reality.
The development of this drama will affect the future prosperity of the United States radically.
Let us hope, fast, and pray that Barachhio listens to Timothy Cricket and our story has a happy ending. Would hate to turn into enslaved donkies, all of us!
Taking Life and Death Out of the Hands of Providence and Placing them into the Hands of Human Beings Paves the Way for Tyranny
or
Why Democrats Should Rethink Abortion
Background
January 22, 2012 marked 39years since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion in the United States (1973).
For 39 years, we have been terminating pregnancies clandestinely, most of us giving little thought to the ethics, economic implications, medical dangers, psychological effects, or any other aspect of abortion.
Media does not discuss abortion. Friends and relatives rarely mention abortion. Yet one third of all children conceived since 1973 in the US (54 million of them) have been aborted. That means that 15% of our population is missing, and that one out of every 7 people is missing. And, if you consider that they would also have had some children, the number missing is even greater. Many of us may be missing brothers and sisters about whom we know nothing. Scores of women we know have aborted children, and most of us know nothing about it.
Purpose
The present article reviews the enormity of abortion, its effects on our entire society, and the exploitation of whole populations by modern politicians, who appear to be motivated by the same quest for power and gain as famous historical tyrants.
Questions
The central questions:
Is abortion right or wrong?
Is abortion a big deal?
How much is 52 million?
Do most Americans favor abortion?
Are women who have had abortions better off?
Why do most women avoid discussing their abortions?
Is a fetus a dispensable blob of tissue (see photo above), or is it a human being with a right to life guaranteed by the US Constitution?
Have we done anything to imbalance our society and our economy with all of this abortion?
What are the major motivations of abortion proponents? continue reading…
UN Officials Wrong. No Right to Abortion.
New Expert Document Issued at United Nations
Where: UN Press Briefing Room, Dag Hammarskjold Auditorium
When: October 6, 2011, 11 a.m.
What: Launch of the San Jose Articles
OPEN TO UN ACCREDITED PRESS
Tomorrow morning at the UN press briefing room, internationally recognized scholar Professor Robert George of Princeton and former US Ambassador Grover Joseph Rees will challenge claims made by UN personnel and others that there exists an international right to abortion in international law.
As recently as a few weeks ago the UN Special Rapporteur on Health, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Secretary General have all said such a right exists. And, according to Human Rights Watch the CEDAW Committee has directed 93 countries to change their laws on abortion.
Professor George, Ambassador Rees and 30 other international experts are releasing the San Jose Articles to refute these claims and to assert the rights of the unborn child in international law.
Other signatories to the Articles include Professor John Finnis of Oxford, Professor John Haldane of the University of St. Andrews, Francisco Tatad, the former majority leader of the Philippine Senate, Javier Borrego, former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights, and Professor Carter Snead of UNESCOs international committee on bioethics. continue reading…
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.
In the spirit of defending our nation’s religious freedoms, I’ve been participating in some online discussions on the subjects of Obama Administration’s Health and Human Services HHS Mandate, often erroneously labeled the “Contraceptive Mandate,” and on the Fortnight for Freedom prayer effort organized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which began on June 21, 2012.
Our Christmas plaques have informed people that their hearts are hardened by religion and that their minds are enslaved by religion. Yet people do not flock to us. They still put up a Christmas tree in the Capitol rotunda that dwarfs our signs by orders of magnitude, and they dare to call it a CHRISTmas tree, as generations of their ancestors have done.
We hope that they will stop expressing their beliefs out of fear of our lawsuit which they cannot afford. That way, we do not have to go to court and risk losing the case, or use up our meager budget. But people have no sympathy for us. They don’t understand our pain. They accuse us of 
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.
