Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged Cultural Wars

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

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 (and abortifacients 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!

More discussion of the national liberal attack on Rush Limbaugh at Knights in Shining Armor.

The Main Point Was Almost Lost

Lost Point

Meanwhile, the main point was almost lost.

The President of the United States has issued a proclamation in opposition to his previous promises to Congress (promising Stupak that abortion would not be included in ObamaCare, and that an Executive Order would be issued to that effect).

  • A proclamation that controls what the largest Church in the US (28% of U.S. citizens belong) must do against it’s conscience.

Americans are not Stupid

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

There is also the cost of reigniting the cultural wars.
John Leo of The Fiscal Times writes:

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.

Today Obama called the Supreme Court “unelected,” and warned them against striking down the health law.  This constitutes an attempt to control the Judiciary.

Evidently, what we now have is   Obama: Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, Rolled Into One.

The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.

The Solution:

Read
Pray
Vote

.

Recent online discussion at the Wisconsin State Journal produced some comments defending FFRF’s (Freedom From Religion Foundation’s) legal challenges of religion as being “within their rights.”  I find it surprising that FFRF persists in their vendetta to eradicate public mention of religion, considering that atheists are often listed as tax-exempt religious organizations themselves, and even the textbook definition of religion includes the beliefs that they espouse.  So, ultimately atheists are just pushing their OWN religious beliefs in preference to those of others.

Supporters of FFRF have also argued that   Judeo-Christian values “have shaped Western Civilization by means of state-sanctioned swordpoint.” Perhaps FFRF and its supporters are confusing militant Islamic radicals with peace loving Christians in 2011?  It is hard to find evidence of “enforcement of religion by sword point” in the US, where 80% of us are Christian, and in Madison, where 53% are Catholic, 22% Evangelical Lutheran, and only 10% of the population is outside of Christian denominations (ref).   Not too many swords being wielded by Mayor Cieslewicz or by President Obama recently as far as I can tell.

. Is not FFRF jousting at windmills?  Like Don Quixote, FFRF has imagined an enemy where no enemy exists in 2011 America.

.

If FFRF were so “within their rights,” they would have more supporters than 0.003 of 1% of America, their frivolous lawsuits would be on a larger and more meaningful scale than at present, and they would enjoy better success in court.

To date, most of their demands and lawsuits have been directed at small communities, which cannot afford litigation costs.  For example, recently FFRF has challenged Marshfield, WI’s City Council’s practice of  prayer . The population of Marshfield is about 18,000; Marshfield is about 7% the size of Madison.

A number of FFRF’s and similar legal challenges have already been denied by the courts.  The U.S. Supreme Court (1983, Nebraska Legislature prayer), as well as a 2008 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, have upheld legislative prayer .  Is FFRF also planning to initiate a lawsuit against President Obama, who ended his State of the Union address with the words “God bless America?”

FFRF’s recent, larger-scale attempt to declare the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional did succeed for one week in April of 2010 with a liberal Wisconsin judge (Barbara B. Crabb,District Judge) ruling in their favor, but the ruling was promptly challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice .  The Obama administration is planning to fight to preserve the law establishing the National Day of Prayer.  The idea of a national Day of Prayer has existed since 1775, and was supported by the constitutional congress, and by numerous Presidents, including President Lincoln.

The rationale for preserving the National Day of Prayer can be found at the American Center for Law and Justice .

There can be no denying that FFRF efforts towards the enforcement of public ATHEISM should be resisted by all reasonable Americans, just as those trying to force ANY particular religion should be resisted.   FFRF’s efforts at intimidation of small communities by litigation are misguided and are to be condemned.  FFRF should practice the same tolerance towards religious Americans that religious Americans practice towards FFRF.

Why are our many different religious roots so revered in the United States?  The United States was first settled by people fleeing governments which forbade free exercise of religion. In more recent times, my own relatives came here fleeing the occupation of Lithuania by an atheist regime which denied religious freedom.  Those unable to escape, spent decades in Siberian exile and in concentration camps.  I wonder if FFRF atheists realize where radical vendettas by intolerant people wishing to control the beliefs of others (either atheist zealots OR religious zealots) can lead?  How many RELIGIOUS groups have intimidated FFRF with numerous and frivolous lawsuits?

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 18th century (American, French) emphasized curtailing the ability of governments to restrict the individual freedoms of citizens. In the 21st 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, 75TH ed., s.v. “Liberalism.”

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

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:

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.

.

Rosary for the Bishop is one of my favorite cultural war weapons !

“The Heart open to God, purified by contemplation of God, is stronger than guns and weapons of every kind.”

-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect of the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Message of Fatima

Learn more about Rosary for the Bishop in Tom Reitz’s interview with Relevant Radio:

Tom Reitz

All Posts