Presidential Nominees -Who Gets to Choose Them?

or

What’s a Delegate to Do?

Note: This article was inspired by the work of Curly Haugland on Republican Presidential Candidate selection at Will Republicans Have a Primary Or A Convention, And Who Gets To Decide?

The Problem- “Binding” of Votes

There has been much controversy in recent years over the question of “binding” Republican delegates in presidential primaries and conventions.

What is a delegate?  A delegate is a person designated to act for or represent another or others; deputy; representative, as in a political convention.

Binding is a policy that does not allow delegates at a presidential convention to follow their own judgment or to insist on the party platform when voting for a candidate at the convention, but obliges them to vote only for the candidates who were selected in the primary or caucus selection of candidates in their state months previous to the Republican Convention.

So the question becomes how can a delegate best act for or represent others in the Republican convention?  Does a delegate represent other Republicans better when the delegate is “bound” to vote for a particular individual, or does the delegate represent other Republicans better when he/she is free to use their own judgement, as other elected officials, like Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress do?

In the Republican Party, binding was forbidden by RNC rules since 1923, and delegates have had the freedom to use personal judgment.
But attempts have been made in recent years to introduce binding into RNC rules, with a great deal of confusion resulting.

Pros and Cons

Those who advocate binding say binding is democratic, represents the will of the people, and should not be overturned at the convention by delegates who do not wish to be bound by the popular vote.
Political donors promote binding because their investments in candidates at the primary level could be wiped out by unexpected votes at the convention if delegates were not bound after the primary.

Those who oppose binding and advocate freedom of conscience for delegates say that outsiders, who are permitted to vote in Republican primaries in 24 States now, have no right to hijack the party at the primaries for an agenda that may even be at odds with the party platform.

These issues become particularly important as we approach the 2016 Presidential Election, which has been labeled the most unique, yet pivotal, nomination process in the entire history of the Republican Party.

Some Crucial Background on Ballot Access

Who is right?
Pro-binding or anti-binding advocates?
What are the rules?

If we start with the question “What are the rules governing nominations for President in the United States?” it helps to understanding the modern dilemma on “binding” of delegates.

Ballotpedia, a respected impartial political news source, explains the ballot access process for presidential candidates:

According to Ballotpedia, there are three ways that a person can get on the ballot for President:

• The individual can seek the nomination of a political party. Political parties are private organizations in which like-minded individuals with similar goals have banded together to sponsor a nominee for president who upholds their organization’s priorities and agenda or platform.

• They can get on the ballot for President independently. This involves petitioning each state to have their names printed on the general election ballot. Each petition involves complex procedures designed by State lawmakers to prevent non-serious candidates from appearing on the ballot. In 2016, it would also involve the collection of more than 900,000 signatures in support of that candidate.

• The person can run as a write-in candidate. In most states, this involves filing some paperwork in advance of the election. And, of course, it involves persuading millions of people to write the candidate’s name in on the ballot during the general election.

What’s the Easiest Way for a Person to Run for President?

It is pretty clear that the first option, getting a party to nominate you for president, is easier than the other two options. In the first option, the party does much of the work for the candidate. The party offers the unique ability to effectively organize and mobilize voters. The party also contributes a history, a reputation and loyal members who will vote for the candidate.

Two such major parties have dominated the political landscape in the United States for over a hundred years- Democratic and Republican parties. These parties not only help candidates, but they also help voters. Once voters have identified a party whose platform they approve, they do not have to repeat the hard work of gauging each presidential candidate individually on each issue and deciding which one to back for each election. The party they support and trust does this evaluation for them.

Political Warfare

In the past, it seemed honest common sense that only individuals who support a party platform would consider running under the umbrella of that party.

The idea that someone who disagrees with the party platform would try to use that party to get elected would clearly represent a form of dishonesty, even of hijacking.
However today, attempts to hijack political parties occur.

Why Would Anyone Want to Hijack a Party?

Someone may want to hijack a political party for a number of reasons.

The reasons include circumventing the tedious application process to numerous individual States, avoiding the collection of nearly a million signatures, and the attractive nature of jumping on a wagon that is already well under way and is well stocked.  A deceitful person could even see hijacking of the opposition party as an opportunity to weaken the opposition party from the inside.

Click Image to Enlarge

The Republican Party’s major opponent, the Democrat Party, has unfortunately demonstrated numerous times their willingness to use an unethical set of tactics called Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  Hillary Clinton wrote her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky’s philosophy and was offered a job to work with him in 1968.  Barak Obama taught Alinksy Tactics while he was a professor.  Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals is dedicated to Lucifer (Satan, the Father of Lies) and promotes the use of any immoral tactics to achieve one’s goals. The behavior of both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton  during the past 8 years has illustrated time and again the devious unethical tactics used routinely by the Democrat Party.

Democrats seem to be riddled with unscrupulous agendas much more so than other groups of Americans or than Republicans. As an aside, you could read about the circus that went on in Madison, Wisconsin when Democrats decided to recall Republican Governor Walker because they did not like legislation that Republicans were enacting in Wisconsin.  I had a front-row seat at that circus, and reported on many unscrupulous behind-the scenes events, including shocking events involving State Supreme Court Judges at the Wisconsin State Supreme Court.  Events such as these make President Nixon’s Watergate seem like naughty child’s play, but the media does not even attempt to hold Democrats accountable for their unethical behavior in 2016, and amateur bloggers like me have to do the work of the media.

Dealing With Reality

So reality dictates today that we have to deal with individuals who present themselves to a political party for nomination, while disagreeing with a major portion of that party’s political platform or agenda. The party has to watch out for hijackers, or Trojan horses, or wolves in sheep’s clothing- both among the candidates, and among primary voters.

This is where the supervision of trusted, elected party delegates who have earned the trust of the party through demonstrated volunteer service comes in, helping to identify and eliminate impostors and hijackers. Delegates have been entrusted the job of being the guardian angels of the party’s ethics and of the party’s platform.

Hijacking can occur not only at the candidate level, but at the primary voter level as well. Twenty-four states now allow the general public to vote in primaries for nominees of other parties. So when Democrats and Independents and undeclared voters are permitted to choose the Republican Party’s nominee, clearly the Republican Party no longer has control over its own organization. There is even the potential for organized busloads of opponents, sometimes without proper identification, to vote numerous times in primaries in order to sabotage their opponents’ candidate selection.

Isn’t That a Bit Paranoid?

Unfortunately, the scenarios described above are not imagined, but have already surfaced at the Iowa caucuses in this 2016 election.

Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders has accused his Democrat opponent Hillary Clinton of infiltrating the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state paid staffers.  A pretty serious accusation, considering that Hillary won the Iowa Caucuses by only 0.29%.

Equivalently shocking, there is video documentary published February 10, 2016, of Out of State Voters and Non-Residents Offered Ballots in New Hampshire Presidential Primary.  So apparently, attempts to hijack the Primaries are in full force today.

Back to Binding Delegates- Democratic or Not?

So the binding of delegates is not a simple democratic procedure as many media sources represent it. In fact, binding of delegates can work against democracy in numerous ways:

• Binding of delegates allows outsiders to help choose the Republican nominee at the Primaries.
• Binding of delegates allows candidates who oppose the Party platform to be nominated.
• Binding of delegates misleads voters into thinking a candidate represents something other than they really represent.
• Binding of delegates does not allow delegates to take into account all the events that transpire in the half year between the primaries and the convention.
• Binding of delegates is unfair to those who have built the Republican Party, which is, after all, a private association with freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment to associate with politically like-minded individuals.
• Binding of delegates allows the infiltration of political party by opponents.
• Binding encourages money-driven nominations rather than idea-driven or character-driven nominations.
• Binding of delegates has never been permitted by the Rules of the Republican Party.

The above points illustrate that it can very reasonably be argued that the binding of delegates is NOT democratic, but subverts the democratic process and facilitates the hijacking of half of America’s votes.

Hijacking Not Allowed

If a person does not agree with a particular party’s platform, they should not be allowed to represent that party, or to change that party by such devious means.

An outsider cannot join your off-road jeep club and insist that you switch your club’s agenda to knitting.
Your neighbors, no matter how many of them get together and agree, cannot hijack your car from your garage because they do not own it.

But Didn’t the RNC Introduced Binding, and Isn’t Binding Binding?

So why are so many under the impression that binding was introduced into RNC rules by amendment, and that binding is now obligatory?

The problem is that recent political warfare has included numerous attempts by progressives to alter the political agenda of the Republican Party with amendments and to divert its candidates.
These attempts have been fraudulent, and they cause internal contradictions in the RNC rules, which by definition (governed by Robert’s Rules of Order) nullify the contradictory progressive amendments.

Did You Just Say Progressives in the Republican Party?

Yes, there actually are progressives in the Republican Party.
Let’s clarify something about progressives at this point. Etymologically speaking, one would think that progressives were people who represented progress in society.

Yet today’s progressive has wishfully and somewhat narcissistically labeled his or her own fast-paced, radical social and economic experimentation, which most often ends in economic failure and social disaster, as progressive. Not only have they prematurely declared their experiments to represent progress, but they have also tried to dictate that all others follow their foolhardy misguided example.

One example of misguided progessivism is Michelle Obama’s suggestion last year that discarded school lunches be used to fuel cars.  The idea sounds great on the surface- let’s not let anything go to waste!- but when you do the calculations of what it would cost to transform school lunches into fuel for cars, the fuel would end up costing $280 per gallon.

Today’s impulsive and unwise progressive is more aptly named a regressive.
So let’s get to some of the regressive, fraudulent and invalid amendments they tried to introduce into the RNC rules.

 Regressive Attempts to Amend RNC Rules

According to Curly Haugland, National Committeeman from the North Dakota Republican State Committee, and member of the RNC Rules Committee, for the past 90 years RNC rules have prohibited the binding of Republican delegates.  RNC rules continue to protect the right of each delegate to The Republican National Convention to vote their personal choice on issues coming before the convention, and for the candidate of their choice to receive the party’s nomination.

The Rules of the Republican Party  can be changed via prescribed procedures, but changes can occur only once every four years, on the eve of the Republican Convention.  Once the rules are established, the convention proceeds according to those rules, and no further changes can be made until the eve of the next convention four years later.

There have been attempts by regressives to change the rules in recent years, and today, the RNC rules actually do state that binding of delegates can occur (Rule 16).  But Curly Haugland points out that the binding language was introduced illegitimately by deceit and by trickery, by staff who did not have the authority to change the rules, and furthermore, that the attempted binding rule is actually contradicted by other RNC rules which are still on the books (e.g. Rules 37 and 38).  Contradictions are governed by Roberts Rules of Order, which state that any motion that conflicts with other existing rules is null and void.

So despite the fact that binding has been introduced into the RNC Rules, binding is actually null and void.
Binding is not binding.

All-Out War

The struggle between proponents of binding and those defending their rights to vote their conscience led to a serious clash in 2012.

Over 400 Republican delegates filed a Federal lawsuit against the Republican National Committee and Reince Priebus the Chairman, alleging that violence and intimidation were used against delegates in an effort to control how they voted.  These delegates refused to be bound and insisted on their right to vote their conscience.

Despite the fact that the court ordered the dispute to be settled via Alternative Dispute Resolution, the exhibits included in the complaint included a copy of a legal opinion offered by Jennifer Sheehan, Associate Counsel to the Republican National Committee, which clearly states that Delegates are allowed to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether that person is officially placed into nomination.

Regressive Rules Can Boomerang

We’ve already mentioned the boomerang path some “progressive” ideas take, like Michelle Obama’s attempt to force children to eat food they don’t like, then to turn their discarded lunches into $280 per gallon fuel for cars.

The thing is, most progressive regressive ideas fail, and come back to bite the people who initiated them.  Any good scientist will tell you that most experiments fail, and it is the failed experiments that ultimately lead you toward figuring out what really  does work.

And regressive rule changes in the RNC rules are no exception- they boomerang and come back to bite you.

Changing MORE Rules

Presidential candidates (like Mitt Romney) who are powerful enough to influence the appointment of delegates in the Republican Party, can get their delegates to introduce changes into the RNC rules on the eve of the convention once every 4 years.  And guess what they try to introduce?  Rules which favor that candidate.  And so, on the eve of the 2012 Tampa Republican convention, more rules were changed.

Previous to 2012, in order to go on to the convention, a candidate had to win a plurality of votes in the primaries of 5 states; that is, to receive more votes in 5 states than any of his/her competitors did.  But on the eve of the 2012 Tampa Convention, this rule (Rule 40) was changed, in order to make Mitt Romney the Presumptive Nominee and to prevent Ron Paul, who had received a plurality of votes in 5 states, from challenging Mitt Romney.  The bar was raised to require a majority of votes (more than 50% instead of just the highest number) in 8 states (instead of in 5 states). This rule change made on the eve of the 2012 Convention succeeded in excluding Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney went on to become the Republican nominee.

Here Comes the Boomerang!

Well, here we are now in 2016.

The 2016 Republican field is much larger and more competitive than 2012, so the majority (50%) that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul got in 2012 is much harder to get.
We have a veritable flock of great candidates coming up on stage.  So much so that they cannot even fit onto one stage, and Republican debates are split into two sessions.
At the rate things are going, even the front runners do not seem capable of getting 50% of the vote, because the vote is spread over so many candidates.

What will happen?
The very rules that helped Mitt Romney are now getting in the way of many candidates.
So, there will be no “Presumptive Nominee.”

Many candidates may get to the convention, and rule changes are being planned for the eve of the July 1016 Convention.
As a result, this year, the candidate selection process may occur at the convention, and not at the primaries.
Candidates who do not have a majority of delegates are being encouraged to “go the distance” to Cleveland and not to drop out. 
Delegates are being encouraged to vote their conscience, and to select a nominee who represents the Party Platform.

When delegates do not feel “bound,”  the handlers and influence peddlers will lose control over the convention.  The convention will be in the hands of the delegates of the Republican party.
So what worked for progressives in 2012 in getting a much more liberal candidate (Mitt Romney) ushered into the Republican Party, may work against the present most liberal candidate, Donald Trump.
Donald Trumps’s hopes of being the Presumptive Nominee may have been sabotaged by the rule change in 2012 that was designed to help liberal candidates like Mitt Romney, and presumably Donald Trump.
The boomerang has returned.

Anybody Placing Bets?

So who’s placing bets on the mad dash to change the rules again on the eve of this 2016 Cleveland Republican Convention?
Will the rules be changed?
Will there be a repetition of delegate intimidation?
Will Reince Priebus and the National Republican Committee behave and let democracy work, particularly since they were forced to recognize the delegates’ right to conscience after the lawsuit in 2012?
Some have even speculated that this convention could yield wild surprises, such as the nomination of people who had not even declared themselves as candidates for nomination, like Sarah Palin.

What We Need

What we need at this point is patriotism, courage, strength of character and prayer.
This is an opportunity for Americans to take back the Republican Party, to behave in a way that is faithful to the Constitution and to the Republican Party Platform, which supports the Constitution.
We need power to be returned to the delegates as it was originally designed and intended.
And that power will not return by itself. It has to be taken by courageous men and women.
At the 2016 Republican Convention in Cleveland.

So What’s a Delegate to Do?

• A Delegate is to act like a patriot.
• A delegate is to help take back America, so that this Judeo-Christian democratic republic can continue to thrive and succeed and does not turn into a regressive experimental Godless socialist state which is the trajectory that Obama and the Democrat Party are following.
• A delegate is to choose candidates of upstanding moral character who are pledged to upholding the platform of the Republican Party.
• A delegate really should read the new guide being prepared for Republican Party delegates which is being spearheaded by North Dakota Republican National Committeeman Curly Haugland, intended to make all delegates aware of the duties and responsibilities they assume as they fulfill their important role in the governance of the Republican Party. The working title of the guide is “Owner’s Manual for 2016 Republican National Convention Delegates. See RNC Delegates Top Priority:Recruiting Conservatives Into Party’s Precinct Committeemen Ranks.

READ THE GUIDE THAT’s COMING!

Seriously, That Was Obama’s Response!

Above is Obama’s verbatim response to receiving a copy of Evangelii Gaudium, a 240 page Apostolic Exhortation written by Pope Francis.
And what did Obama give to Pope Francis in exchange for this moral challenge?
Carrot seeds.

Carrot Seeds?

Yes, probably Michelle’s carrot seeds.
Presumably President Obama thought that carrot seeds from the new White House garden established by Michelle would serve as a suitable memento of this historic visit.
Ironically, the carrot seeds came in a box which represented the very religious freedom that President Obama is in the process of trampling.
The box was made from the timbers from the Basilica of the Assumption, the first Cathedral built in the United States, built in tribute to religious freedom.
President Obama is currently fighting 91 religious liberty lawsuits.
One can only speculate on President Obama’s intent in giving Pope Francis a box made from Basilica of the Assumption timbers.
We hope he was not thumbing his nose at Pope Francis, as he did to President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Cardinal Dolan when he summoned the Cardinal to the White House and lied blatantly to him in the early days of ObamaCare.

Details of the Historic Meeting between Francis and Obama

Barbara Boland of CNS News summarized the Pope’s meeting with President Obama perceptively in an article entitled Obama Gives Pope Vegetable Seeds, Francis Gives Obama Writings on Morality:

.

.

Obama Gives Pope Vegetable Seeds, Francis Gives Obama Writings on Morality

The text:

 What’s Next for the Pope?

Pope Francis will be hearing confessions in St. Peter’s Basilica tomorrow, as part of his global “24 Hours for the Lord” initiative, which encourages all dioceses to have at least one parish open all day and night tomorrow, March 28th, so that anyone can go to Confession.

Watch out world, we all know what happens each time this Pope initiates a global spiritual  initiative!
See:

• Pope Francis Takes On Obama
• Global Adoration- Say What?
• Making Sense of Syria
• Does Prayer Work?
• Political Pieces Falling Into Place

What’s Next for President Obama?

President Obama will be touring the Colloseum, the place where countless Christians were fed to lions.
The ultimate irony, since Cardinal Burke, the Vatican’s Chief Justice, recently declared that Obama’s policies are “Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization.”

Impeachment Back in the News

Impeachment is back in the news.
To impeach, or not to impeach?
Articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama were filed just a few weeks ago by a group of black American citizens, the National Black Republican Association (NBRA).
Throughout August, conservative constituents at towns halls have also been pressuring members of Congress to impeach the President.

• What has Barack Obama done to deserve this public outcry?
• What did other recent impeachment candidates do to deserve impeachment?
• How do Barack Obama’s offenses compare with the offenses of the last two Presidents to be impeached?
• Could impeachment of President Obama succeed, and what would it accomplish?

Blatant Lies and Lost Credibility

At the very least, whether successful or not, impeachment attempts expose the blatant lies and reflect the loss of credibility of a President.

Blatant lies told by Presidents undermine not only their own authority, but also the Office of President of the United States.
Presidential lies undermine the credibility and moral integrity of our entire nation.

Comparing Articles of Impeachment

The articles of impeachment summarize accusations  made during an impeachment:

.

Richard M. Nixon
Articles of Impeachment:

• Obstruction of Justice
• Abuse of Power
• Contempt of Congress

 “He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to . . . cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.“

-Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon, adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Article II, Section 1

Results: Richard Nixon’s impeachment did not go to the House or Senate for trial, because Nixon first resigned in disgrace.

.

William J. “Bill” Clinton
Articles of Impeachment:

• Perjury
• Obstruction of Justice

The judge wrote:
“Simply put, the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false….”

Results: Bill Clinton was Impeached by the House of Representatives, and acquitted by the U.S. Senate.  He received a contempt of court citation, and a suspension of his Arkansas law license, as well as a suspension from the U.S. Supreme Court bar.
Bill Clinton did not resign, and today seems unashamed of his misdeeds.
Incredibly, half of America seems to have little problem with Clinton’s moral and legal transgressions, as he continues to play a prominent role in the Democrat Party today in 2013, despite the public demolition of his integrity.
.

.

Barack H. Obama
Articles of Impeachment filed by a “black American citizens”:

• Obstruction of Benghazi investigation
• Disclosure of grand jury material
• Authorization of DOJ to conduct Fast and Furious
• Authorization of IRS to release confidential information ot unauthorized individuals and organization
• Initiation of  discriminatory IRS audits
• Permission of unjustified NSA surveillance of 300 million average Americans
• Permission of DOJ to spy on over one hundred Associated Press Journalists and on Fox News Reporter James Rosen
• Thwarting Congress by failing to enforce laws including the Defense of Marriage Act, No Child Left Behind Act, and Affordable Care Act, and by directing immigrations officers to stop enforcing immigration law when Congress refused to pass his Dream Act.
• Violations of the Constitution, bypassing the US Senate to appoint 3 members of the National Labor Relations board and to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection bureau.
• Intimidation of whistle blowers and bringing twice as many prosecutions against whistle blowers as all prior presidents combined.

WOW

Ten Articles of Impeachment.
That’s a first.
Black Americans accusing the first black President of tyranny and of despotism.
That’s even more of a first.

This nation has been very proud of the historically significant 2008 Presidential election, in which our first black President was elected.  America prides itself on freedom, on fairness, and on opportunity.  I am the child of poor Lithuanian immigrants, and love America deeply for it’s just (Judeo-Christian) system of government and law, and the resulting opportunities it offers to those who work hard and follow the rules.  My entire family has risen from poor immigrants to successful and prosperous Americans in less than one generation, thanks to the opportunities offered by this country.  Despite my conservative political beliefs, even I was impressed with this aspect of the 2008 Presidential election outcome-a tribute to what children of all backgrounds can achieve in the United States – because we have a fair and just country.

Reasons Not to Impeach

What a tragedy and heartache it would be if the first black President abused the office so badly that he had to be impeached.  This is the sentiment that probably prevents most of us from discussing the impeachment of Barack Obama.  Some Obama supporters state candidly that they refrain from opposing the President because he is black.  When black Americans start proposing impeachment, we know this man has really abused the authority granted to him as President. And when liberal black leaders start proposing impeachment, this man has really crossed the line.

If a Lithuanian were ever elected President, I (as a Lithuanian) would be pretty reluctant, pretty ashamed, and pretty hard-pressed to demand his impeachment.

Reasons to Impeach

Yes, I would be reluctant to impeach a Lithuanian.

But I would demand the impeachment nevertheless, because I know that true equality includes accountability and includes keeping ALL leaders subject to the law, not just some.

Lithuanians, or blacks, or any other group of human beings, are not well served by condoning the misdeeds of one of their members.  Protection of offenders carries the unspoken implication that the entire group is complicit.  Protection sends the message that the entire group is not capable of responsible and accountable behavior. Excusing unacceptable behavior can even carry the bigoted implication that better cannot be expected from this minority person.
Wise minorities, whether Lithuanian or black, would demand accountability from their President, in order to demonstrate that the malefactor is the exception, not the rule, in their group.

And So, Black Americans Accuse President Obama of a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations

National Black Republican Association:

We, black American citizens, in order to free ourselves and our fellow citizens from governmental tyranny, do herewith submit these Articles of Impeachment to Congress for the removal of President Barack H. Obama, aka, Barry Soetoro, from office for his attack on liberty and commission of egregious acts of despotism that constitute high crimes and misdemeanors.

On July 4, 1776, the founders of our nation declared their independence from governmental tyranny and reaffirmed their faith in independence with the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.  Asserting their right to break free from the tyranny of a nation that denied them the civil liberties that are our birthright, the founders declared:

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”  –  Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

Comparison of Charges

All three recent impeachment candidates, Nixon, Clinton and Obama, were clearly guilty of lies, and of mis-using the power of the Office of President.
Details of the accusations vary, and some overlap.

All three broke the law.
All three lied.

The articles of impeachment above show many MORE accusations against President Barack Obama than against Nixon and Clinton.

They include IRS discrimination, NSA spying, prosecution of whistleblowers, wiretapping of journalists, the torture program and the Benghazi cover-up. Obama’s troubles do not seem to stem from one error as in the case of Nixon or Clinton, but from numerous errors and numerous cover-ups.  The list of articles of impeachment reflect a pervasive and systematically unscrupulous administration.  Phrases like Chicago tactics, Imperial Presidency, and Gangster Government surface in the news.

Lucifer – Ricardo Bellver, Madrid, 1877

Perhaps this is not so surprising after all, in reference to the man, Obama, who used to teach  Alinksy Tactics (aka Satan’s handbook, or the antithesis of the Ten Commandments) in Chicago.

It is interesting to note that accusations against Nixon did include “income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner,” an accusation very similar to the IRS discrimination recently tolerated and probably initiated by the Obama administration.

There has been much discussion of President Obama’s misdeeds and misrepresentations.  One discussion compares President Obama with President Nixon extensively, in an article entitled Obama’s Watergates, in which numerous parallels are drawn between Nixon and Obama.   The author, Victor Davis Hanson,  a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, calls the Obama administration’s methods and aims “Nixonian to the core.”

Hanson predicts that the scandals, beginning with Benghazi, and continuing with the IRS, the Associated Press and James Rosen, as well as with Edward Snowden and the NSA, will not end until “the truth sets us all free.”  He predicts a long-drawn-out and sordid saga.

Obama In Catholic Cathedral Pulpit

An interfaith service was held  at Boston’s Catholic Holy Cross Cathedral on April 18, 2013, dedicated to those affected by the terror attack at the Boston Marathon.  President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama attended, and President Obama spoke at the gathering.

Pros and Cons

The pros and cons of giving President Obama the pulpit in an American Catholic Cathedral can and will be argued, particularly by Catholics.

The use of a Catholic Church for public prayer at a time when Boston turns to God is a very powerful and appropriate symbol of the universality of the Catholic Church, and of its predominance in America and in the world.  The Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination in Boston, in Massachusetts, in the United States, and until, recently, in the world.

• 45% of Boston is Catholic
• 44% of Massachusettes is Catholic 
• 24% of Americans are Catholic
• Islam just outnumbered Catholics worldwide in 2008

President Obama at Holy Cross Cathedral

However, giving America’s most radically pro-abortion  President who supports the redefinition of marriage and of family, and who has spearheaded the violation of the religious freedom of Catholics in the United States, giving this President the pulpit in a Catholic Cathedral from which he can spread his dubious theology is also a contestable choice.

On President Obama’s violation of the religious freedom of Catholics:

• August 1^st, 2012 – Day of Infamy 
• July 4^th or Obama’s Independence Day Gift to America – a Trojan Horse 
• What’s in a Mandate?
• To My Friends Who Are Democrats

Not surprisingly, prior to the interfaith service, the wisdom of letting President Obama take the pulpit at Holy Cross Cathedral was questioned by many.

Catholics asked themselves whether the Catholic Church’s customary role as mankind’s intermediary with God would be exercised through this arrangement, or whether the Catholic Church and her teachings would be debased by the presence of Barack Obama in the pulpit.  The same Barack Obama, who 6 days later became the first US President to speak at Planned Parenthood, where he ended his speech by invoking God’s blessings on Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood performs 1/3 million abortions per year, and receives over half a billion federal dollars annually towards that effort. Six out of ten Americans oppose federal funding of abortion (3 of 10 approve).  Abortion is a much bigger deal than most think.

The President and First Lady at Holy Cross Cathedral

The key to what would happen at the interfaith prayer service, whether it would facilitate a beautiful ecumenical lifting of souls to God, or whether it would resemble more a cheap political stunt debasing the Catholic Church, would lie in what each of the two men, Cardinal O’Malley and President Obama, said while standing in the pulpit.

As it turns out, neither man went to any heroic or shocking extremes, and it is not clear to this Catholic whether the use of Boston’s Holy Cross Cathedral for this purpose was appropriate.

Other faiths, in including Islam, were also represented at the prayer service.  Mercifully, the choice of Islam representative was corrected in the nick of time, before an Imam from a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Mosque ended up in the pulpit of Holy Cross Cathedral.

What Did the Cardinal and the President Say from the Pulpit?

The Cardinal:

For text of Cardinal O’Malley’s homily, scroll down below.

The Obamas listen to religious speakers

In his homily, Cardinal O’Malley did somewhat courageously mentioned the culture of death, abortion, the devaluation of human life, and the need for steering clear of revenge.  These subjects reflect Catholic Church teaching, and are relevant and appropriate to the Boston Marathon tragedy.  Cardinal O’Malley’s role as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities made him an ideal spokesman on these issues.

Obamas at Interfaith Prayer Service

Other comments made by the Cardinal must have reflected his more personal views.  Cardial O’Malley voiced his disappointment over insufficient gun control, and made almost friendly, or at least neutral references to the Communist Party and to “community building,” a phrase that has taken on somewhat progressive political connotations in recent years.  The Catholic Church takes no position on gun control or on “community building,” but it does tread cautiously where Communism is concerned:

Paragraph 2425:    The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.²⁰⁷ Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”²⁰⁸ Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

 The President:

The text of President Obama’s address is also provided below; scroll down.

President Obama speaks at Holy Cross Cathedral Interfaith Service

Mercifully, President Obama refrained from commenting on hot-button issues, and did nothing shocking like asking God to bless the dismemberment of unborn and accidentally born infants at Planned Parenthood.  He did not push his views directly, as he had done at the recent dedication of the George W. Bush Library, where he had promoted his immigration views.

.The most controversial aspect of President Obama’s speech was his omissions.  The President avoided any mention of jihad or terrorism, and limited his reference to the bombers to calling them “perpetrators of such senseless violence — these small, stunted individuals.”

The President’s speech also reflected the his global world view, including a somewhat personal perspective.

President Obama’s assured Boston that those who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing would face justice. He said that Americans always “come together to celebrate life,” and referred to the source of American strength.  According to the President, our American strength comes from our faith in each other.  President Obama said that Boston is “the perfect state of grace,” and that the political and religious leaders of Boston, as well as the people of Boston, are the source of grace.

The President’s focus on people (instead of God) as the source of faith, of grace and of justice, was disconcerting.  Religious Americans usually consider God to be the source of faith, grace and justice.  Non-religious Americans generally avoid discussing faith and grace altogether, and struggle to agree on what constitutes justice.
So the President’s use of terms like the “state of grace” in a secular context made his intent somewhat obscure.

The President did reference God several times, as the source of our power, love, and self-discipline, as one Who holds close those who died, Who comforts their families, and Who will continue to watch over the United States.

The President seemed to have no understanding of the irony of his comments regarding “celebrating life,” or “visiting death upon innocents” in Boston.  As President, he must know that half of his nation opposes abortion and two thirds of us oppose its federal funding.  So to speak of “celebrating life” and “death of innocents” in the aftermath of the Boston tragedy, while failing to show any compassion for the 1 million annual innocent lives lost to abortion, and failing to comment on the horror stories of the Gosnell abortion clinic trial and scandal, was bound to antagonize much of the President’s audience.

Text of Cardinal O’Malley’s homily:

Jesus said “they will strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter”; that is what happened to His disciples after the Crucifixion, as they scattered in fear, doubt and panic.

Cardinal O’Malley speaks at Holy Cross Cathedral Interfaith Service

This week we are all scattered by the pain and horror of the senseless violence perpetrated on Patriots Day. Last Sunday at the 11:30 Mass here at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Fr. O’Leary led a special blessing for the many runners who participated in the Mass. Some people here were among those injured and those who witnessed the terrible events that unfolded at the finish line of the Marathon, but everyone was profoundly affected by the wanton violence and destruction inflicted upon our community by two young men unknown to all of us.

It is very difficult to understand what was going on in the young men’s minds, what demons were operative, what ideologies or politics or the perversion of their religion. It was amazing to witness, however, how much goodness and generosity were evidenced in our community as a result of the tragic events they perpetrated.

It reminds me of a passage in Dorothy Day’s autobiography where she speaks about experiencing a serious earthquake in California when she was a young girl. Suddenly neighbors that never spoke were helping each other, sharing their food and water, caring for children and the elderly. She was amazed and delighted, but a few weeks later people retreated to their former individualism and indifference.

Dorothy Day spent the rest of her life looking to recapture the spirit of community. That led her to the Communist Party and eventually it led her into the Catholic Church and to found the Catholic Worker Movement, dedicating herself to the care of the homeless, the drug addict

This past week we have experienced a surge in civic awareness and sense of community. It has been inspiring to see the generous and at times heroic responses to the Patriots Day violence. Our challenge is to keep this spirit of community alive going forward. As people of faith, we must commit ourselves to the task of community building.

Jesus teaches us in the Gospel that we must care for each other, especially the most vulnerable; the hungry, the sick, the homeless, the foreigner; all have a special claim on our love. We must be a people of reconciliation, not revenge. The crimes of the two young men must not be the justification for prejudice against Muslims and against immigrants.

The Gospel is the antidote to the “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” mentality. The parable of the Good Samaritan is the story about helping one’s neighbor when that neighbor was from an enemy tribe, a foreign religion, a hostile group. The Samaritan cuts through centuries of antipathy by seeing in the Jewish man who had been beaten and left for dead not a stranger or an enemy, but a fellow human being who has a claim of his humanity and compassion.

We know so little about the two young men who perpetrated these heinous acts of violence. One said he had no friends in this country, the other said his chief interests were money and his career. People need to be part of a community to lead a fully human life. As believers one of our tasks is to build community, to value people more than money or things, to recognize in each person a child of God, made in the image and likeness of our Creator.

The individualism and alienation of our age has spawned a culture of death. Over a million abortions a year is one indication of how human life has been devalued. Violent entertainment, films and video games have coarsened us and made us more insensitive to the pain and suffering of others. The inability of the Congress to enact laws that control access to automatic weapons is emblematic of the pathology of our violent culture.

When Pope John Paul II visited Madrid in 2003, addressing one million young people, he told them; “Respond to the blind violence and inhuman hatred with the fascinating power of love.” We all know that evil has its fascination and attraction but too often we lose sight of the fact that love and goodness also have the power to attract and that virtue is winsome. Passing on the faith means helping people to lead a good life, a moral life, a just life. Thus part of our task as believers is to help our people become virtuous.

Plato thought that virtue was knowledge. As Chain Ginott, the concentration camp survivor, reminds us, doctors, nurses, scientists and soldiers were part of the Holocaust machinery, showing that knowledge is not virtue, and often science and technology have been put at the service of evil. It is only a culture of life and an ethic of love that can rescue us from the senseless violence that inflicts so much suffering on our society.

Like Christ our Good Shepherd, we who aspire to be Jesus’ disciples and to follow His way of life, we too must work to gather the scattered, to draw people into Christ’s community. It is in His Gospel that we find the answers to the questions of life and the challenging ideals that are part of discipleship; mercy, forgiveness, self sacrifice, service, justice and truth.

John Lennon once said, ‘Everything will be OK in the end. If it’s not OK, it’s not the end.’ Our faith goes beyond that optimism. Love is stronger than death. We are going to live forever in the Resurrection Christ won for us on the Cross. The innocent victims who perished this week; Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi, Officer Sean Collier, will live in eternity. Life is not ended, merely changed – that is the message of Easter. As Martin Luther King expressed, ‘Death is a comma, not a period at the end of a sentence.’

Although the culture of death looms large, our Good Shepherd rose from the grave on Easter and His light can expel the darkness and illuminate for us a path that leads to life, to a civilization of solidarity and love. I hope that the events of this past week have taught us how high the stakes are. We must build a civilization of love, or there will be no civilization at all.

Text of President Obama’s Address:

Hello, Boston! 

Scripture tells us to “run with endurance the race that is set before us.”  Run with endurance the race that is set before us. 

On Monday morning, the sun rose over Boston.  The sunlight glistened off the Statehouse dome.  In the Common and the Public Garden, spring was in bloom.  On this Patriot’s Day, like so many before, fans jumped onto the T to see the Sox at Fenway.  In Hopkinton, runners laced up their shoes and set out on a 26.2-mile test of dedication and grit and the human spirit.  And across this city, hundreds of thousands of Bostonians lined the streets — to hand the runners cups of water and to cheer them on.

It was a beautiful day to be in Boston — a day that explains why a poet once wrote that this town is not just a capital, not just a place.  Boston, he said, “is the perfect state of grace.” 

And then, in an instant, the day’s beauty was shattered.  A celebration became a tragedy.  And so we come together to pray, and mourn, and measure our loss.   But we also come together today to reclaim that state of grace — to reaffirm that the spirit of this city is undaunted, and the spirit of this country shall remain undimmed.

To Governor Patrick; Mayor Menino; Cardinal O’Malley and all the faith leaders who are here; Governors Romney, Swift, Weld and Dukakis; members of Congress; and most of all, the people of Boston and the families who’ve lost a piece of your heart.  We thank you for your leadership.  We thank you for your courage.  We thank you for your grace. 

I’m here today on behalf of the American people with a simple message:  Every one of us has been touched by this attack on your beloved city.  Every one of us stands with you. 

Because, after all, it’s our beloved city, too.  Boston may be your hometown, but we claim it, too.  It’s one of America’s iconic cities.  It’s one of the world’s great cities.  And one of the reasons the world knows Boston so well is that Boston opens its heart to the world.

Over successive generations, you’ve welcomed again and again new arrivals to our shores — immigrants who constantly reinvigorated this city and this commonwealth and our nation.  Every fall, you welcome students from all across America and all across the globe, and every spring you graduate them back into the world — a Boston diaspora that excels in every field of human endeavor.  Year after year, you welcome the greatest talents in the arts and science, research — you welcome them to your concert halls and your hospitals and your laboratories to exchange ideas and insights that draw this world together. 

And every third Monday in April, you welcome people from all around the world to the Hub for friendship and fellowship and healthy competition — a gathering of men and women of every race and every religion, every shape and every size; a multitude represented by all those flags that flew over the finish line.

So whether folks come here to Boston for just a day, or they stay here for years, they leave with a piece of this town tucked firmly into their hearts.  So Boston is your hometown, but we claim it a little bit, too

I know this because there’s a piece of Boston in me.  You welcomed me as a young law student across the river; welcomed Michelle, too.  You welcomed me during a convention when I was still a state senator and very few people could pronounce my name right.

Like you, Michelle and I have walked these streets.  Like you, we know these neighborhoods.  And like you, in this moment of grief, we join you in saying — “Boston, you’re my home.”  For millions of us, what happened on Monday is personal.  It’s personal.

Today our prayers are with the Campbell family of Medford.  They’re here today.  Their daughter, Krystle, was always smiling. Those who knew her said that with her red hair and her freckles and her ever-eager willingness to speak her mind, she was beautiful, sometimes she could be a little noisy, and everybody loved her for it.  She would have turned 30 next month.  As her mother said through her tears, “This doesn’t make any sense.” 

Our prayers are with the Lu family of China, who sent their daughter, Lingzi, to BU so that she could experience all this city has to offer.  She was a 23-year-old student, far from home. And in the heartache of her family and friends on both sides of a great ocean, we’re reminded of the humanity that we all share.

Our prayers are with the Richard family of Dorchester — to Denise and their young daughter, Jane, as they fight to recover. And our hearts are broken for 8-year-old Martin — with his big smile and bright eyes.  His last hours were as perfect as an 8-year-old boy could hope for — with his family, eating ice cream at a sporting event.  And we’re left with two enduring images of this little boy — forever smiling for his beloved Bruins, and forever expressing a wish he made on a blue poster board:  “No more hurting people.  Peace.”  

No more hurting people.  Peace.

Our prayers are with the injured -— so many wounded, some gravely.  From their beds, some are surely watching us gather here today.  And if you are, know this:  As you begin this long journey of recovery, your city is with you.  Your commonwealth is with you.  Your country is with you.  We will all be with you as you learn to stand and walk and, yes, run again.  Of that I have no doubt.  You will run again. You will run again.

Because that’s what the people of Boston are made of.  Your resolve is the greatest rebuke to whoever committed this heinous act.  If they sought to intimidate us, to terrorize us, to shake us from those values that Deval described, the values that make us who we are, as Americans — well, it should be pretty clear by now that they picked the wrong city to do it.  Not here in Boston.  Not here in Boston.

You’ve shown us, Boston, that in the face of evil, Americans will lift up what’s good.  In the face of cruelty, we will choose compassion.  In the face of those who would visit death upon innocents, we will choose to save and to comfort and to heal.  We’ll choose friendship.  We’ll choose love. 

Scripture teaches us, “God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline.”  And that’s the spirit you’ve displayed in recent days. 

When doctors and nurses, police and firefighters and EMTs and Guardsmen run towards explosions to treat the wounded — that’s discipline. 

When exhausted runners, including our troops and veterans — who never expected to see such carnage on the streets back home  — become first responders themselves, tending to the injured — that’s real power. 

When Bostonians carry victims in their arms, deliver water and blankets, line up to give blood, open their homes to total strangers, give them rides back to reunite with their families — that’s love.

That’s the message we send to those who carried this out and anyone who would do harm to our people.  Yes, we will find you.  And, yes, you will face justice.   We will find you. We will hold you accountable.  But more than that; our fidelity to our way of life — to our free and open society — will only grow stronger.  For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but one of power and love and self-discipline.

Like Bill Iffrig, 78 years old — the runner in the orange tank top who we all saw get knocked down by the blast — we may be momentarily knocked off our feet, but we’ll pick ourselves up. We’ll keep going.  We will finish the race.  In the words of Dick Hoyt, who’s pushed his disabled son, Rick, in 31 Boston Marathons — “We can’t let something like this stop us.”  This doesn’t stop us. 

And that’s what you’ve taught us, Boston.  That’s what you’ve reminded us — to push on.  To persevere.  To not grow weary.  To not get faint.  Even when it hurts.  Even when our heart aches.  We summon the strength that maybe we didn’t even know we had, and we carry on.  We finish the race.  We finish the race.  

And we do that because of who we are.  And we do that because we know that somewhere around the bend a stranger has a cup of water.  Around the bend, somebody is there to boost our spirits.  On that toughest mile, just when we think that we’ve hit a wall, someone will be there to cheer us on and pick us up if we fall.  We know that. 

And that’s what the perpetrators of such senseless violence — these small, stunted individuals who would destroy instead of build, and think somehow that makes them important — that’s what they don’t understand.  Our faith in each other, our love for each other, our love for country, our common creed that cuts across whatever superficial differences there may be — that is our power.  That’s our strength. 

That’s why a bomb can’t beat us.  That’s why we don’t hunker down.  That’s why we don’t cower in fear.  We carry on.  We race. We strive.  We build, and we work, and we love — and we raise our kids to do the same.  And we come together to celebrate life, and to walk our cities, and to cheer for our teams.  When the Sox and Celtics and Patriots or Bruins are champions again — to the chagrin of New York and Chicago fans — the crowds will gather and watch a parade go down Boylston Street. 

And this time next year, on the third Monday in April, the world will return to this great American city to run harder than ever, and to cheer even louder, for the 118th Boston Marathon.  Bet on it.   

Tomorrow, the sun will rise over Boston.  Tomorrow, the sun will rise over this country that we love.  This special place.  This state of grace.

Scripture tells us to “run with endurance the race that is set before us.”  As we do, may God hold close those who’ve been taken from us too soon.  May He comfort their families.  And may He continue to watch over these United States of America.

Additional Details on the Interfaith Service

A more detailed description of the Holy Cross Cathedral interfaith service can be found in the National Catholic Register:

To My Friends Who Are Democrats…

(See former Hillary Clinton aide postscript at end.)
Pitching politics has been counter-intuitive for me for most of my lifetime.

I have never belonged to one political party, and still refuse to join one.
I refuse to be a groupie following one charismatic individual, and I do not relinquish my free will to control by any organization or group.
Admittedly, I have been quite conservative most of my life; although there have been exceptions to that, too, particularly during my college days.

A Realistic View

My view of politics is a realistic one; nothing’s black, nothing’s white. Nobody is 100% right, nobody is 100% wrong. I like to enquire, to think, and to adopt the best of what everyone has to offer. That includes ideas from more than one political party.

The United States seems limited to two major parties.  Not a bad system, from the viewpoint of avoiding governance by a minority, smaller than 51%.  Since one party is not likely to encompass all the ideas of a particular individual, we have to weigh the pros and cons offered by the two major parties at each election, and choose the party that satisfies our most important considerations at that historical time.

But Aren’t You a Republican?

Anybody reading this blog must have noticed that my writing seems to be very pro-Republican in 2012.  But those who read carefully will notice that I rarely use the word Republican. I rarely use the name Romney.  Instead, I use the word conservative.

What About Most Americans?

Few Americans are extremists.
Few people are radically conservative or radically liberal.
Most of us are in the middle.
Even those who are quite conservative, like me, believe in the right of others to reject my beliefs. Religious Christians respect the gift of Free Will given to us by God, and we respect the freedom guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States.
Few liberals are callous, insensitive to the bankrupting of America, or to the extermination of 54 million unborn American citizens by abortion, a problem particularly affecting black communities.
Few conservatives are callous, insensitive to the plight of the poor, or to the horrors of war.

Most Americans appreciate that good people can view things from different perspectives, and those who disagree with us probably have noble motivations.  Even if we believe that our opponents have their facts mistaken, we can admire them for their dedication to justice and to fairness, which we share.

Most Americans are independent in spirit, and have voted for candidates from both political parties over the years.
For many years, the differences between Democrats and Republicans were not overwhelmingly large; both supported Judeo-Christian principles, and both supported the rule of law as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.  Did you know that as recently as 1999, Harry Reid opposed abortion?  So did Joe Biden, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

But 2012 is different.

What’s Different in 2012?

Barack Obama is the difference in 2012.
Barack Obama, unlike previous Presidents, and unlike most Americans and most liberals, has shown himself to be a rigid, inflexible idealist.

The unification, transparency, and justice that he promised, and on the basis of which he was elected, have been replaced by a dictatorial, extreme and unaccountable set of policies, executed by czars, which have pushed America into gridlock.
His policies and mandates do not follow the rule of law.

President Obama’s ideals don’t represent those of most liberals or most Americans, yet he tries to mandate compliance with his ideals.  He issues mandates without approval of the House, Senate, or Supreme Court.  When the legislature refuses to pass what President Obama wants, he bypasses them with a mandate. Then he promises Vladimir Putin that he will have “more flexibility” after this election.

How Has Barack Obama Reneged On His Promises and Violated the Rights of Americans?

President Obama has reneged on a number of the duties to which he was sworn at his inauguration, and on a number of campaign promises he made in 2008.

Barack Obama has imposed his will on our country in many areas:

• Morality and Freedom of Conscience
• Economy
• Prospects for Students
• Foreign Policy
• Immigration

Morality and Freedom of Conscience

Barack Obama has ignored the opposition of 2/3 of America on federal funding of abortion, and has even gone beyond federal funding of abortion, forcing Catholics to pay for the contraceptives and abortifacients of others.  He has dismissed the concerns of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and has ignored lawsuits filed by 43 Catholic organizations.  The courts are now starting to strike down this unconstitutional mandate.

Barack Obama’s radical and unfettered promotion of unrestricted abortion free of charge has elicited the protest of numerous moral leaders, including Catholic Bishops, the 94 year old Billy Graham, Jews, Baptists, and numerous other Christian churches.

Such a radical promotion of abortion and contraception no only renders our society inhuman from the point of view of morality, but also has economic consequences, since shrinking and aging populations will face rapidly mounting debts.

Abortion is already a much, much bigger deal than most think. Under Barack Obama, abortion will be taken to unprecedented levels.
Against the wishes of 2/3 of America.

Economy

Barack Obama has not passed a single budget in four years, and submits budgets to the legislature so unrealistic, that they get ZERO Democrat votes in the Senate, which is held by Democrats.
Sometimes it appears that the President doesn’t understand the math.
Recently, he admitted on national television that he struggles with 7th grade math.  This cannot be good.

Barack Obama has raised the national debt by 50% in just 4 years with his spending, creating a per capita national debt of over $50,00 for each of us, when it was just $33,000 four years ago. Since only half of us pay any federal income tax, that means a per capita debt of about $100,000 for each person who pays federal tax, and a per household debt of over $250,000 in the United States today.  Since the average household income in the United States is $50,000, that’s already quite a debt, a debt of five years income for each of us.  If Barack Obama is reelected, the national debt is projected to go up an additional 47% over 10 years, bringing the household share of the national debt to over $375,00.  That will be a debt of seven and a half years income for each of us ten years from now.  If you think you have paid off your mortgage by then, you can start a new mortgage on a $375,000 house.  That’s for the average family earning $50,000 per year.  If your income is higher, your extra debt will be higher.

Scrooge McDuck

Quite some plan Barack Obama has for us, considering that our per capita national debt is  already worse than Greece’s today, at the outset, right now.

Barack Obama’s plan to tax the rich is so naive that it betrays the fact that he struggles with 7th grade math.  There are not enough rich people in America to get appreciable income from increasing their taxation, and his recent proposal would require DOUBLING the taxes of all people earning $250,000 per year; a move that would wipe out the ability of small businesses to hire workers or to expand.  The President seems to be reading too many comic books.

(Dismal) Prospects for Students

Already, 53% of recent college grads are jobless or underemployed. Considering the fact that the average graduate faces $27,000 in loan repayment, and the fact that the average college grad starting salary is $44,000, this does not spell good news for college grads or their families.  College students are demoralized, they do not want to live in their parents’ basements, and the parents do not need to face supporting unemployed adults instead of saving for retirement.

The jobs these students would have been getting in the absence of Obama’s naive policies are destroyed by ObamaCare costs for employers and Obama’s intention to double taxation on small business owners, who will not hire and expand.

Barack Obama insults the intelligence of these young people by offfering them free abortions and free birth control pills (value $500 and $9/monthly) in exchange for their votes, in return for a future of unemployment, debt and low pay.  With poor people, he tries to buy their votes with free “Obama-phones.” 

Foreign Policy

In the light of recent events in Benghazi, the most positive possible interpretation of Barack Obama’s negligent actions in failing to protect our Embassy staff would be that he did not provide security for the Benghazi because he did not expect anyone in Libya to touch Americans, perhaps because we are such nice people.  Can anyone be that naive?

Barack Obama acted as though we are in Libya handing out candies to trick-or-treaters, and he did not expect them to come out wielding knives, or heavy weapons such as the ones which were used against the Benghazi embassy – automatic weapons, mortars and rocket propelled grenades.  When caught criminally unprepared, coverup followed.

An even less flattering explanation of Barack Obama’s actions would include Obama sacrificing our global standing intentionally.  Obama has been accused of an anti-colonialist mentality, which considers that the US needs to be downsized globally in it’s lifestyle, it’s power and it’s wealth.  The movie 2016:Obama’s America documents these claims by Dinesh D’Souza, a University President who bases most of his claims on Obama’s autobiography, Dreams of My Father, as well as research into Obama’s life. 2016: Obama’s America is showing in theaters now, has grossed more than $33.45 million in the United States.  The movie is now the second biggest political documentary in film history.  Yet this record-setting film is virtually being ignored by the mainstream media, which protects Obama from criticism routinely and shamelessly.

Another less flattering explanation of Barack Obama’s actions would include accusing him of intentionally reducing US Power because of the secret Marxist ideology taught to him by Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA propagandist who is mentioned in Obama’s autobiography .  This theory is based on the documented fact that Obama’s mother posed for pornographic photos taken by Marshall Davis, who, it is suggested, could also be Barack Obama’s father.  These suggestions are explored by the movie Dreams from my REAL Father, which can be watched instantly on Netflix.  If you have not seen this film, I suggest you watch it this weekend, before you vote.

Finally, a third movie, The Hope and the Change, is available to watch for free on Hulu at http://www.hulu.com/watch/409925.   The Hope and the Change is a documentary about independent and Reagan Democrat voters who cast their ballots for Obama in 2008 and will not do so in 2012.  These voters feel betrayed by Obama’s false promises of hope and lofty rhetoric.

.

Immigration

Barack Obama has refused to enforce immigration laws at the US border with Mexico, and has sued Arizona when Arizona tried to enforce laws themselves. In this, and other areas, Obama has failed to defend the Constitution of the United States and to enforce its laws.
He has demonstrated a naivete in economics and in foreign policy that has placed our nation  in tremendous danger.

The Point

So the point is: Barack Obama is not your normal Democrat.
Barack Obama does not respect the voice of the American People, 2/3 of whom oppose ObamaCare, 2/3 of whom oppose federal funding of abortion, and 2/3 of whom oppose Obama’s recent violations of the religious liberty of Catholics.
Barack Obama does not respect the division of governmental power between Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.
Barack Obama does not respect his own promises of 2008.
Barack Obama is not who he told us he was.
Barack Obama does not plan to work with all Americans, he just plans to continue pushing his extreme agenda, with which even Democrats disagree.

What To Do

Take Clint Eastwood’s advice; let Barack Obama go.
Mitt Romney’s campaign has been based on love of America, and on pragmatism and cooperation which can end the gridlock. He’s demonstrated his ability to work across the aisle as Governor of Massachusetts.
The election of Mitt Romney would give the Democratic party, which used to represent more moderate views, an opportunity to regroup and respond to the will of the American people.

PostScript: A former Hillary Clinton aide Gigi George is backing Romney because:

“For most of my life, I’ve been an active Democrat. I am proud to have worked for President Bill Clinton and then-Senator Hillary Clinton, and, during that time, I saw firsthand what can be accomplished by strong, bipartisan leadership. I know what it means to work across the aisle on issues that are important to the American people. And that’s why I am supporting Mitt Romney. Governor Romney has a plan to restore the prosperity this country deserves and expects. He will work with people of good will no matter what their party, and he will pursue the policies that are in the best interest of our country, no matter who proposes them. That’s what President Obama promised to do four years ago. But like so many of his promises, bipartisan cooperation is just another one he has broken. We can’t have four more years of failed policies and two parties that can’t work together. We need the change Mitt Romney is offering.”

More Postscipts:

• The liberal Wisconsin State Journal (renamed Progressive by me last month), has endorsed Mitt Romney.

• 21 Liberal newspapers have switched to Romney.

• Ohio, Friday: Romney Draws 30,000, Obama Draws 2,800

• Wisconsin Women overflow Romney Rally

• My Catholic pastor in today’s Cathedral Parish Church bulletin:
  I certainly intend to exercise my right to vote on Tuesday – in fact, I would crawl the four blocks to my polling place over broken glass in order to vote this year. And I trust that you will too – vote, that is.
  Personally, I am hopeful about the current elections. I am optimistic that we will have a good number of newly elected leaders who will be more sensitive to our moral concerns and our freedom of religion. And, God willing, sufficiently prudent decisions will be made so that we can avert the national collapse that appears (at least to me) to loom on the horizon…  (see above link to finish reading)
  
  

  500 Admirals and Generals Endorse Mitt Romney

• Obama has just lost the endorsement of the nation’s first elected black Governor.

• 500 Admirals and Generals endorsed Romney today.
  .
• Gallup: Romney 49% – Obama 48%
• Rasmussen: Romney 49% – Obama 48%

Come Stand Up For Religious Freedom

The next Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally takes place on Saturday, October 20 – just 17 days before the general election.  Join us at Rally sites nationwide as we fight to restore religious freedom in the United States!

Rally Info & Locations: Stand Up for Religious Freedom.com

Why Should I Go?

It’s Simple:

It’s Not Just For Catholics- Atheists Should Be Worried, Too

Or Why Even Atheists Should Stand Against Presidential Mandates

.

If Presidents of the future will be permitted to issue mandates like the HHS Mandate, without popular vote, without Senate or House vote, and without Supreme Court evaluation, what mandate will the NEXT President of the United States, who may not belong to your favorite political affiliation, decree?

I may not like President Obama’s mandates.
But others, including atheists, would not like President Romney’s mandates

.

Where’s the Rally in Madison?

The Madison, WI rally is on the State Street steps of the State Capitol building in downtown Madison, WI.
Noon on Saturday, October 20, 2012.
During the Farmer’s Market!
Come and join us!

Agnostics welcome.
Atheists welcome.
Baptists welcome.
Buddhists welcome.
Catholics welcome.
Evangelicals welcome.
Jews welcome.
Lutherans welcome.
Muslims welcome.
Presbyterians welcome.
All welcome, including any not mentioned above.
Invitation limited to well-behaved people who respect the rights of others.

Report Card Time:

or
Downgrading the United States

 O.K., we know we’ve been slacking a bit…

But now, two new, major and historical national downgrades have just arrived.

Two New Downgrades

We’ve hardly recovered from the August news from Standard and Poor’s that our national credit rating has been reduced for the first time in United States history.

Now, our global rating on restrictions on religious freedom has just been downgraded, for the first time ever.
Yes, the nation initially founded by pilgrims on the Mayflower fleeing Europe to seek religious freedom, has just been demoted officially and lags behind 95 other countries globally in religious freedom.  The report, by PEW Research, a nonpartisan fact tank,is entitled Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion.

.

BTW, this is only the beginning of the religious freedom downgrade; the downgrade is based on data through only mid-2010, before ObamaCare was passed, before the HHS or Trojan Horse Mandate was issued, and before 43 Catholic institutions across the country filed suit against the Obama Administration over the HHS Mandate.

For those interested in the details of America’s report-card downgrades, more data is shown below.
But first, let’s discuss the religious freedom downgrade itself, together with it’s implications.

.

Restrictions on Religion; So What?

.

Restriction or elimination of religion may seem harmless to some.

Some might even fall for the argument that forbidding all public expression of religion might be a kind and tolerant policy to employ.  We would hate to offend the sensibilities of those who don’t believe in God, wouldn’t we?

But such arguments, promoted primarily by a miniscule minority of “progressives” like the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), are shortsighted, misleading and fallacious.  Such arguments promote the elimination of morality and of ethics from government altogether, the banning of conscience from the voting booth, and the restriction of fairness and justice to private life.
Such arguments fail to acknowledge that Thou Shalt Not Kill, Steal, Lie… are essential elements of law and order, that chaos would reign if the Ten Commandments were eliminated from our codes of law, and that banning the public mention of religion actually promotes atheism, a religious belief system held by a very small minority of Americans.

Government cannot promote and enforce atheism any more validly than it can promote or enforce any other belief system.  Most atheists understand this, and offer no opposition to the public expression of religion by the majority of Americans, who are religious.  However, fringe radicals who want to eradicate all mention of religion from American life argue semantics; they claim that technically speaking atheism is not a religion, and that it is valid for government to enforce absence of religion rather than freedom of religion.  They are desperate to prove that their minority belief is superior to Judeo-Christian majority belief.

The Power of Religion

Religions have historically been the primary source for moral codes governing and limiting the conduct of human affairs.

The existence of an inviolable moral code places limits on the actions in which all, including the powerful, can engage.
There is a reason why countless despots in history have worked hard to eliminate the influence of religion in their governments; religion challenges not only the humble, but also the powerful, to comply with codes of ethics such as the Ten Commandments.

• Roman Emperors were considered to be Gods. and were unfettered by a higher power.  This system which assigned ultimate authority to a man instead of to an established system of ethics,  spawned monsters like Caligula and Nero, who used, shocked, and terrorized their subjects through unlimited abuses of power.
• Even relatively benign rulers like Henry VIII illustrate the value of the restrictions that religious ethics place on government.   Henry VIII is an example of a King who placed himself over the ethics dictated by the Ten Commandments, who denounced the authority of the Church, and declared himself head of the Church, because he wished to discard an infertile wife.  As a result, Henry VIII bequeathed one of the first divisions in Christendom, as well as centuries of divorce and of broken homes to his nation and to the world.
• The Marxist Soviet Union worked hard to eliminate religion from any public role in life, so that dictators would be free of moral constraints, to do as they wished unchallenged. Unfettered by Christian principles, the atrocities perpetrated by the Soviet Union include the genocides and repressions executed by Stalin, Lenin, and subsequent Soviet leaders.  My grandparents and uncle are included in those deported to Siberia by this regime without any justification.
• President Obama, also seemingly benign, is the first U.S. President to celebrate “unbelievers” publicly.  He is also the first U.S. President to violate religious freedom in the United States with unilateral mandates, which he issues without a popular vote, without the scrutiny of Congress or the Senate, nor of the Supreme Court.  President Obama has managed to promote himself not only above the laws of Christianity on which this nation is based, but also above democracy, which, incidentally, is also based on religion; on inalienable rights endowed on us by our Creator.
  President Obama unilaterally promotes abortion, homosexual marriage, and taxation without representation, without input from the nation.  Even the minority which approves President Obama’s mandates is shortsighted, not realizing that the power Obama is trying to establish through autocratic mandates will be used against them by a next President who might not be of their choosing.

Religion provides not only a fixed inviolable code of ethics, which apply equally to government and to the governed, but religion also provides a mechanism for giving the man in the street power.  Yes, contrary to what despots like Lenin or Marx would have us think (“Religion is the opiate of the people”), religion is actually the only mechanism that provides power to the people, power against which no government can win. History has shown us many men who, backed by God, stood against incredible odds and won.

Citizens, with the help of God (about whom they learn through religion), can judge the actions of government, can organize, can resist, and can even find the courage to die for the principles in which they believe.  Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty, or give me death” was not an empty phrase, but was a very sincere and powerful statement, epitomizing the spirit of the American people.Over two hundred years have passed, but the spirit of the American people, as well as their love for God, remain.

Despots fear religion, because religion is the only tool that gives unarmed masses the moral authority, the courage and the power to resist autocratic regimes.

Religious Polish people, following a visit from their Pope John Paul II, through Solidarity, with the assistance of President Reagan, a “born-again Christian,” brought the Soviet Union to it’s knees in 1991 without bloodshed.    
– see The Holy Alliance

Incidentally, the “secret weapon” which allowed Mitt Romney to trample Barack Obama during last week’s Presidential debate, is the moral authority and the courage in which Mitt Romney represented the people of America.

Obama and Neutralizing Religion

Whether intentional or not, President Obama is firmly set on a course that would annihilate the power of religion in the United States.

Obama’s HHS Mandate, if not reversed, will impose penalties on all Catholic institutions, penalties which will bankrupt all Catholic institutions within two years.
Catholics, 25% of America, will no longer be able to operate hospitals, schools, or businesses of any kind, because they cannot ethically provide abortifacients to their employees.  Catholics will also be unable to be nurses, pharmacists or doctors, as abortion-related mandates eliminate all Christians from employment in medical professions.
Obama’s autocratic insertion of abortion into ObamaCare via the HHS Mandate, in violation of his own Executive order and promise to Bart Stupak and his 11 Democrats, will force the federal funding of abortion on America, something that 2/3 of America opposes. In Bart Stupak’s own words, Barak Obama is the “most pro-abortion President ever,” against the wishes of two thirds of America.
Obama’s initial attacks seem focused primarily on Catholics; Obama views Catholic teaching on contraception an Achilles heel, an area where his attack on the authority of conscience and of religion may have some success.  The ethical problems posed by contraception are something that most Americans have not studied, and on which most Americans are not likely to support the Catholic Church.

If the strike at this Achilles heel were to be successful, however, the precedent will have been established which allows further violation of religious conscience rights by government mandate, permitting Obama (and all subsequent Presidents) to rise above the consciences of all Americans, above all religious teachings, and above the will of the people.

Most religious leaders know this, and have joined in supporting the Catholic Chruch against the HHS or Trojan Horse Mandate.

If You Don’t Want Further Downgrades

Bottom Line:

The Religious Freedom downgrade is serious.
The Religious Freedom downgrade is likely to get much worse if President Obama is reelected and if ObamaCare and the HHS Mandate are not overturned.

Flunking religion is actually related to flunking all the other subjects: credit rating, economy, reproductive health, health care quality, education, unemployment, quality of family life, crime rate and drug arrests.  All of these are affected by our commitment to ethics and to justice.

.Whether President Obama’s trampling of the religious freedom of Americans is unintentional or purposeful, it must be reversed if this nation is to prosper.
If you want to repair the American Report Card, vote for Romney/Ryan, who will reorient this nation toward those Judeo-Christian values which are still codified in our laws and on which most of us still agree:  life, liberty, property, responsibility, fairness, truth, and the rule of democracy.

Some Claim That President Obama Wants Us to Flunk

There are documented and credible claims, based on President Obama’s autobiography and on an analysis of his history that Barak Obama subscribes to an anti-colonialist philosophy.

Anti-colonialism vilifies the United States as a nation which exploits other nations unfairly, and which must be taken down a peg to equalize global opportunity for other nations.   Anti-colonialism does not acknowledge that hard work and ethical values got the US to where we are today, and that the same opportunity is available to other nations.  The philosophy assumes that there is a fixed amount of prosperity in the world, and that  in order for other nations to prosper, the United States must be demoted.

The philosophy is flawed, just as the claim that my building of a

ENVY

great log cabin or learning of a new language prevents my neighbor from building a great log cabin or learning a new language, is flawed.

The fallacy is fed by envy, which wants to destroy what it does not have instead of working to get it.  See Taxing the Rich or Thou Shalt Not Kill Thy Neighbor’s Cow, or Does President Obama Know How to Count?

These claims about Barack Obama are documented by Dinesh D’Souza in his film 2016: Obama’s America. The film, stating about Obama “LOVE HIM, HATE HIM, YOU DON’T KNOW HIM,” has become the highest grossing documentary in 2012, grossing over $30 million, and surpassing Michael Moore’s Sicko, Bowling for Columbine, and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Despite the obvious box office success of this movie, the mainstream media, supporters of Obama, have virtually ignored the movie.  The movie is still playing in numerous theaters, and continues to attract both supporters and critics of Barack Obama.

If we have an anti-colonialist President at the helm as the movie 2016 claims, our report card will continue to degenerate even more rapidly; not surprisingly, if that is the goal of the Commander in Chief.  A suicide-bomber who intentionally crashes an entire nation out of envy and resentment.  Particulary ironic, for a man who has benefited so much personally from the opportunities in America and who quite obviously enjoys the luxuries that can be acquired here.

More Details – Where Exactly are We Slipping?

Let’s take a look at the major areas in which our national report card has been slipping.  We start with more detail on the two most recent downgrades, this year, following the impact of President Obama’s first term:

• the first downgrade ever in credit rating
  and
• the first downgrade ever in religious freedom.

Grading Our Credit Status- First Downgrade in History

The US credit rating got downgraded for the first time in history on August 5, 2011, immediately after Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling in the Budget Control Act on August 2, 2011.
This downgrade was the result of President Obama’s “stimulus” spending, in which he singlehandedly increased the total previous national debt by 51%, in less than 4 years, more than doubling the spending rate of any President, including his predecessor Bush.

The borrowing of an additional 36% of the gross national product    in less than 4 years damages a nation’s credit rating, because other nations begin to worry whether the US will ever be able to pay back their loans.

.

.
.

Already, the US per capita government debt is worse than that of Greece.

.

.
.

.

.

A continuation of President Obama’s proposed budget would bring the national debt to $25 trillion in ten years.

.

This is why conservatives like Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan are desperate to reverse US spending, and to stop the accumulation of debt.

.

.

Grading on Religion

Next, we examine the Pew Research evaluation of restriction of religious freedom exercised by governments.

Pew Research is a nonpartisan fact tank that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The center conducts public opinion polling, demographic studies, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. It does not take positions on policy issues.

Religious Freedom Grades- First Downgrade in History

Now, under President Obama, for the first time in history, the U.S. just got a downgrade in religious freedom this week. 
We are no longer among the freest nations on earth when it comes to religion.
Moreover, this downgrade in religious freedom is only the beginning of potential future downgrades, since it only reflects President Obama’s policies through mid 2010, prior to his issuance of the HHS Mandate in 2011.  The HHS Mandate violates religious freedom further, is opposed by 2/3 of America, and is likely to damage US religious freedom scores even more.

The United States, the nation founded to establish religious freedom for those fleeing religious persecution in Europe, has just been downgraded on religious freedom, and now lags behind many developing nations, and behind previous Soviet satellites such as Lithuania, in governmental tolerance of religion.

How Big Is the Downgrade?

Pew Research grades the nations of the world from 0 to 10 with Government Restriction Index (GRI) Scores:

The United States GRI increased from 1.6 in 2009 to 2.7 in 2010.

.

The change is considered significant, represents almost a doubling in the level of religious restriction in our country, and shifts the United States from the Low Religious Restriction into the Moderate Religious Restriction category.

.

How Do We Compare With Other Nations on Religious Freedom?

Following the first half of Barack Obama’s term of office, we abruptly joined 16 countries whose scores increased by more than one point in one year, indicating a measurable increase in Governmental hostility to religion.  We can probably expect a further downgrade when President Obama’s HHS Mandate of 2011 is included in future scores, and when the obligatory abortion provisions of ObamaCare kick in.
Now Australia, Canada, Japan, South Africa, and 91 additional countries have better religious freedom scores than we do, and we have joined the Moderate Religious Restriction category with Cambodia, Lebanon, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, among others.

Will we be classified with Pakistan, Libya and Iraq in the Very High Religious Restriction category next year, when the HHS Mandate has imposed crippling tax penalties on all Catholic and Evangelical employers?

Where Else Are We Failing, as a Nation?

Economy:

Along with our Credit rating downgrade comes an economy downgrade.

The US was still #1 in the Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) in 2008-2009, before President Obama took office.  In the last four years, however, the US has dropped to #7, during the fourth year of President Obama’s term.

Reproductive Health:

We have fallen from #12 lowest infant mortality in the world in 1960 to # 41 today in 2012.

Before the Obama administrations recent attempts to redefine reproductive health, reproductive health used to be measured by infant mortality.  The lower infant mortality, the better a nation’s “reproductive health” rating.
Now, it seems that the Obama administration, after issuing Executive Orders promising to exclude abortion from ObamaCare, has reversed itself.  Now Obama insists that abortion, sterilization and contraception free of charge be rights guaranteed to all women, and includes these services in ObamaCare, via the HHS Mandate.

As abortion, contraception and screening and treatment for STDs are added to the expanding list of “reproductive rights” now guaranteed for the first time to be free of cost by the Obama administration, the birth and health of newborn infants continues to be de-prioritized, and the decline of our infant mortality in the United States has not kept pace with declines in other countries.

A nation that kills its own children cannot prosper.

Health Care:

Our United States healthcare system, once among the best in the world,  has fallen to #37 world-wide.

Education:

In the 1950s and 1960s America led the world in K-12 education, just as we led the world with our economy.
Now, were have dropped to #25 among 34 nations.

Unemployment:

Today, we have been unable to get below an 8.3% unemployment rate since Barack Obama took office four years ago in 2009.
(This week’s news claiming a drop just below 8% is challenged by experts on both sides.)
By contrast, in the 1950s, unemployment averaged 4.5% 

Stability of Family Life; Divorce Rate:

.

Crime Rates, Drug Arrests

Crime rates escalating in the United States

Drug arrests escalating in the United States

 What Do You Do When You’re on the Verge of Flunking?

How Do You Pull Up Your Grades in the Last Quarter?

You buckle down, and figure out that school is not a place for meeting friends, hanging out, eating candy and mocking teachers.
You decide where you want to go, how much time you have, who can help you, and what the essentials are.
Do your work.
Stop making excuses.
Be responsible.
Do extra work.
Develop a better work ethic.
Pray.
Resolve to develop some new habits.
Focus in class.
Attend class.
Don’t fool around.
Don’t slack.
Follow the rules.
Respect your teacher and respect the students who are successful; ask them for help.
Stop complaining, and start working.

The Same Advice Works for a Nation:

Find a guy who is responsible and successful, and listen to what he says.
It worked for Wisconsin with Scott Walker.
It can work for the US with Romney/Ryan.

Vote Romney/Ryan on November 6^th,
like your life depended on it. ( It does.)

Heckling the Rosary

or

Renaming the Wisconsin State Journal

Don’t Diss My Church

One of the prime goals of this cultural values blog is to defend my religion, Catholicism, against the regrettably frequent and unjust attacks we suffer, particularly in Madison, WI.
One of this blog’s first blog categories was “Don’t Diss My Church.”
And in Madison, the Wisconsin State Journal has provided more than it’s fair share of imbalanced reporting on Catholics, frequently fueling my blog.

Why Pray the Rosary at Madison’s Capitol Square?

Catholics praying the rosary at Capitol Rosary Rally

Now that the Obama administration has embarked on restricting the religious freedom of Catholics, Madison Catholics have begun praying the rosary on Thursday evenings on the Madison Capitol steps, to beg God’s help in the restoration of religious freedom to our nation. 

Madison’s Rosary Rally gatherings attract 150-300 quiet, polite people each week.  The crowd includes families with small children, young singles, and many grandparents as well.  The Catholics gather quietly after business hours, do not disrupt Capitol business, leave no litter behind, do no shouting, carry no vuvuzelas, whistles or drums, and don’t even carry signs.  They come, they pray for our nation, and they leave quietly, leaving no damage in their wake.

Who Heckles Children Praying the Rosary?

About 3 to 10 ne’er-do-wells have started showing up at these rosary events, attempting to disrupt them. Their tactics include shouting four letter words from across the street, mocking the rosary, carrying rude signs mentioning private body parts, and all the usual aggressive radical left tactics Wisconsin has witnessed at recent teacher union protests, and at Madison Pro-Life rallies (which radicals have routinely tried to disrupt in recent years, and where they have even been known to get up in pulpits at Library Mall and perform strip-tease dances in front of children with literally only God knows what motivation).
Teacher union protest tactics:

.

Is the Wisconsin State Journal Heckling the Rosary?

So, Doug Erickson, the “religion” reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal (WSJ), instead of covering the story from the perspective of the hundreds of Catholics participating in the Capitol Rosary Rally who represent one quarter of America, covered the story instead from the perspective of the handful of rude hecklers.

Doug chose the headline:

Critics: ‘Rosary rallies’ at Capitol thinly disguised GOP pep fests

Hmmm… GOP “pep-fest?”

Better Headlines not considered by WSJ:

• Catholics Pray for Restoration of Religious Freedom
• Families Pray for the Coming Election
• Family Values Defended in Public Prayer
• Prayer Brought to Madison’s Downtown Capitol
• New Peaceful Standard Set for Disagreeing With Government
• Prayer and Civility Replaces Anger and Rage at Madison’s Capitol
• Contrasting Teacher Union Protests and Capitol Rosary in Madison

I have participated in many of the Rallies, and I can attest to the fact that Doug Erickson’s implication that Rosary Rallies are “pep-fests” could not be further from the truth.

A More Accurate Headline:

Mark Levin exposing Democrat propaganda (click photo for link to audio).

WSJ  Rosary Rally Article- Thinly Disguised Radical Dem Propaganda

Thinly Disguised Radical Dem Propaganda Headline

The Wisconsin State Journal’s misleading headline was amplified by a factor of 118,000 through its State-wide circulation, and the whole of Wisconsin was misinformed.  Not to mention online readers, or readers of spin-off articles such as those at the LaCrosse Tribune, Yahoo News or the Orlando Sentinel.

The Wisconsin State Journal gave voice to a handful of hecklers and dissidents rather than to hundreds of serious Catholics, who represent the beliefs of 25% of the American population  and 25% of Madison’s population.

Who are These Hecklers Favored by the Wisconsin State Journal?

Rosary Heckler Number One

One individual quoted in Doug Erickson’s article is Craig Spaulding, who presumed to know the motivations of the Catholics and declared the prayer rally to be partisan and to be GOP.
Doug Erickson failed to mention who Craig Spaulding was —  he did not mention that Craig Spaulding is a fringe radical Madison activist who was arrested (more than once) during the teacher’s union protests, who had to be carried out of the Senate gallery by ten officers for violating rules, and who is a member of the anarchist International Workers of the World, which favors “direct action,”  in place of using democratic channels. Craig Spaulding is also involved with Occupy Wisconsin,  participates regularly in the frequent Capitol lunch sing-a-long protests, and used to own the most troublesome drinking establishment on Capitol Square, which was famous for it’s “underwear parties.” It is not clear whether Craig Spaulding is a paid union protester . Craig is listed as a delinquent taxpayer owing over $33,000 in taxes.

Here’s a You Tube showing the Capitol lunch protesters with whom Craig Spaulding participated frequently and which forced Capitol Tour Guides to wear ear plugs; the group whose perspective the Wisconsin State Journal favors over the perspective of Catholics praying the Rosary at the Capitol:

.

Second Rosary Critic

Annie Laurie Gaylor of FFRF at Stand Up for Religious Freedom Rally, Madison, W

Second Rosary Critic

Another individual quoted by the WSJ article is one of the co-presidents of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), Annie Laurie Gaylor, who personally protested at the Stand Up For Religious Freedom Rally last June 8^th, and who made no objections while her husband and co-President of FFRF Dan Barker repeatedly heckled praying children and scandalized them by shouting sexually suggestive remarks addressed to the children.

Dan Barker (FFRF) at Madison’s Freedom From Religion Rally; and what was Dan Barker doing? Shouting rude things at children.

Annie Laurie Gaylor and FFRF are in a minority not only because they are atheists, but particularly because they are a miniscule minority among atheists themselves.  They constitute only 0.1 of 1% of atheists, or one out of a thousand atheists.  That’s right, 999 out of 1,000 atheists, unlike Gaylor and FFRF, are tolerant of 80% Christian America, of 25% Catholic America, and have no problem with our legally established American right to public prayer which President Obama periodically exercises.  Gaylor and her FFRF, whom the Wisconsin State Journal chose to quote in this article, constitute the angry radical fringe, which represents only one out of 33 thousand people, or 0.003 of 1% of the population of America.

Third Rosary Heckler

Another Rosary heckler (not mentioned by the Wisconsin State Journal article) made herself known to me when her braggadocio arrived in my inbox, through an online discussion in which I had participated.  She belatedly joined a discussion which I had previously viewed as a reasonable and constructive conversation with a Madison LGBT activist, and which started when I objected to the activist’s treatment of the first Capitol Rosary Rally and of Bishop Morlino on his blog.

Aside: Since that time, the LGBT activist has begun censoring comments published on his blog, selecting supportive radical comments for publication, and declining to publish further discussion with me.  I guess there are limits to the “Bluebird’s” willingness to discuss truth, after all, particularly when he and his friends start losing the argument.  Turns out, he’s also a regular at the Lunchtime Solidarity Singers at the Capitol, who drive tour guides to wear ear protection.

Back to the third Rosary heckler: her name is Genie Ogden.  Genie bragged in the online discussion that she heckles the Rosary Rally weekly, boos, and sings “Solidarity Forever” at Catholics who are singing hymns.  Genie, like Craig Spaulding, was also a regular member of the Capitol lunchtime “Sing-a-Longs,” the fringe minority who continues to make noise at the Madison Capitol at lunchtime, despite Governor Walker’s re-election by an even larger majority in Wisconsin than he enjoyed in his first election.

Perhaps Genie is looking for new outlets for her anger, now that the recall is over.  The You Tube of “Solidarity” protesters (to which Craig and Genie belonged, the noise of which drove people to wear ear protection) was presented above.

Schoenstatt Sister after the first Capitol Rosary Rally

.

Just over a week ago, Genie Ogden was arrested for demonstrating with signs without a permit at the State Capitol.  She routinely protests with her daughter, who publicly approves lawlessness, such as the pouring of beer on conservative legislator’s heads, or throwing rotten fruit at them.

.

Do these rosary hecklers/solidarity singers really believe that such actions would be persuasive and would bolster their cause?

.

Genie, like Doug Spaulding and FFRF, tried to claim that the Rosary Rallies are political, and that they constitute a violation of separation of Church and State.  What she does not seem to realize is that neither she, nor other liberals, can divine the thoughts of others, and that the mention of Governor Walker and of Paul Ryan once in the course of thirteen Rosary Rallies, in the context of being answers to prayers, reflects a pro-life, not a Republican position.  Democrat Stupak and his 11 Democrat supporters were an equal blessing and an equal answer to prayer when they stood up for the exclusion of abortion from ObamaCare.
The pro-life beliefs of Catholics are not political; they are ethical.

.Rosary Hecklers in General

The Rosary Hecklers and critics above exhibit a bigoted and tyrannical attitude, denying to others the rights that the hecklers enjoy themselves.

Madison Teacher’s Union Protesters

Solidarity union activists like Craig and Genie, and LGBT activists like the Bluebird, reserve the right to use Madison’s Capitol Square for themselves to promote their own (minority) views and social agendas, but they seem to miss the hypocrisy in denying the use of the Capitol Square to praying Christians, who represent many more people than they do- a fact ignored by WSJ reporters.

The right to public prayer has actually been constitutionally upheld numerous times. Yet the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) continues to attack public prayer wherever they think they can win, through legal intimidation of groups with small budgets, like the town of Marshfield, WI.

The feeble attempts made by Craig, Annie and Genie to label Rosary Rallies events as political

Progressives Misjudging Catholics?

also reflects a judgmental attitude; they claim to know the motivation of others.  After misjudging their target’s motivation, many “progressives” continue by attacking and violating the rights of those with whom they disagree. The Constitution does not guarantee a Right to Hateful Harassment.  Moreover, the effectiveness of such tactics in promoting one’s cause are highly dubious.

I am proud to say that I have never gone to any Madison Capitol Square event to boo, heckle, curse, scream, disrupt or to counter-protest.  I don’t engage in hateful behavior towards those with whom I disagree.  Prayer is a much more civilized (and more productive) response.  My sentiments are representative of those of Rosary Rally attendees.

Ignoring Two Thirds of America

Doug Erickson missed the boat completely by covering the Rosary Rally story from the perspective of a few radical protesters, and by omitting the concerns of two thirds of America.

The Rosary Rallies actually represent the majority of Wisconsin and of America.
The Catholics at the Rally represent all religions in America, which were recently galvanized and united by the religious freedom violations of the HHS Mandate. Numerous religions joined Catholics in opposing these violations of the First Amendment, an amendment which all religions value.  Orthodox Christian Bishops, Protestant Theological Seminary chancellors, Presbyterian Bishops, Southern Baptists, Lutherans Evangelical Lutherans and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America have rallied to support the Catholic Church in upholding the Catholic position on the HHS mandate.  This is what Doug Erickson has failed to cover in his reporting.

The Rosary Rallies are large, peaceful, sustained, and they represent the reasonable Judeo-Christian views and the civilized demeanor of at least two thirds of America.

• Two thirds of America supports the Catholic Church against the HHS Mandate’s violation of our religious freedoms.
• Two thirds of America opposes federal funding of abortion.
• More than two thirds of America (80%) is Christian.
• More than two thirds of America (82%) prays regularly, 47% pray daily.
• More than two thirds of America (83%) say God answers prayers.
• Two Thirds of America supports prayer in public schools.
• 53% of Americans favor repeal of ObamaCare (43% opposed).
• Twice as many American are conservative as liberal
• Numerous religions, including Baptists, Evangelicals and Jews, support the Catholic position in Stand Up for Religious Freedom, the program which gave birth to this Rosary Rally.

In ignoring the perspective of Catholics at the Rosary Rally in favor of the perspective of a couple fringe radicals, Doug Erickson has ignored 2/3 of America.   He has ignored the majority of America’s opposition to federally funded abortion policy, and he has ignored the social consequences of such abortion policy, which has already resulted in shocking coerced abortion rates of 64% .   Abortion is a much bigger deal than most people think .

Ignoring Religious Leaders:
Evangelical Pastors Join Catholics in the Defense of Religious Liberty

The national Religious Liberty debate has been ignored by WSJ, in favor of reporting speculations by a couple of “progressives” on the motivations of Catholics at prayer.

The Catholic Church is not the only group defending religious liberty in the wake of the HHS Mandate.

“THIS AREA HAS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR NON-PROFIT GROUPS TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL 1ST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.”

Evangelical Christian pastors have just organized a bold and courageous protest against the muzzling of moral leaders in America, and in support of religious freedom. On October 7, 2012, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will be celebrated.  More than 1,000 pastors will preach sermons from the pulpit talking about the candidates running for office and then making a specific recommendation.  The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS.  The pastors expect the IRS to try to enforce a 1954 IRS tax code amendment forbidding tax-exempt organizations from participating in discussion of candidates for public office.  When the IRS tries to revoke tax-exempt status and to impose an excise tax on them, the pastors will welcome the court battle.  They claim that the 1954 IRS tax code amendment is blatantly unconstitutional, and they welcome an official evaluation of the amendment in court.
This effort is sponsored by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal ministry formed 18 years ago for the defense of religious freedom through strategy, training, funding and litigation.

Not the First Time WSJ Has Slanted the News

Slanted reporting in the Wisconsin State Journal is not new, nor surprising. Their coverage of the 2011 Teacher’s Union Protests was equally misleading and predisposed toward the  “progressive” viewpoint. Lawlessness and misconduct was not reported, both on the part of demonstrators who trashed the Capitol, and on the part of Democrat officials who conspired to block the legal process.  WSJ coverage was so slanted and misleading, that this blogger took to reporting what’s really happening in Wisconsin on my blog.

The WSJ also gives the tiny Freedom From Religion Foundation quite a bit of favorable press.  Again, a fringe radical group (0.003 of 1% of Americans) gets favored coverage over mainstream Wisconsin.

Twisting and Misrepresenting Catholicism

Coverage of Catholicism in the WSJ has frequently been unprofessionally imbalanced.

Just this week, Doug Erickson did a “moral analysis” of the Catholic vote.
He gave equal weight and space to dissident national co-chairman of Catholics for Obama, as he did to Bishop Morlino of Madison, who is a legitimate and accurate representative of the Catholic Church.

Saul Alinsky, author of “Rules for Radicals”

Catholics for Obama is a group established in 2007, with a website hosted at www.barackobama.com .  Membership numbers are not provided, but are probably a few thousand or less, based on petition signatures quoted at Catholic Democrat. According to Breitbart.com,  Catholics for Obama is dominated by the radical left wing, which promotes Alinsky “social justice” ideology.

So in Doug Erickson’s world, barakobama.com, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and a couple thousand petition signatories carry the same moral authority as a Catholic Bishop and 78 million real American Catholics.  Doug is equating the fringe 0.06 of 1% of Catholics whose theology is steered by Obama, with legitimate Catholic officials and faithful Catholics.  (Bishop Morlino’s education includes a doctorate in Moral Theology from the Gregorian University in Rome, with specialization in fundamental moral theology and bioethics.)

WSJ also recently inflamed a parish conflict with imbalanced reporting, favoring dissidents over the Catholic majority.  The dissident minority was portrayed in a favorable light over the faithful majority.

Doug Erickson: Reporting on the 0.06 of 1% of Madison Diocese  Catholics (Holy Wisdom) – and relegating the 99.94%  (real) Catholics to the last paragraph, entitled “detractors.”

Another Doug Erickson report focused on pair of previously Catholic nuns at Holy Wisdom Monastery, who appear to be recruiting Catholics to join their feminist Sunday services in place of attending the Mass.  These nuns retain the name Benedictines, despite having rescinded their Benedictine vows and having separated themselves from the Catholic Church.  Doug Erickson reported on this fringe minority group of two very favorably, but relegated input from real Catholics, including from the Diocese of Madison, to a last paragraph entitled “detractors,” where he quoted Catholics minimally, and out of context.  A minority of two dissidents was portrayed in a favored light, while real Catholics were again downplayed.

The misrepresentation of Catholics in the Wisconsin State Journal could fill numerous blog posts (and has in the past), but the above three examples will suffice here.

For a Truthful Report on the Capitol Rosary Rally: see You Tube

The Capitol Rosary Rally,  which the Wisconsin State Journal did not bother to portray accurately, and which reflects the Christian views and the civilized demeanor of the majority of Christian America can be seen here:

Come join Catholics in the 14^th Capitol Rosary Rally tonight, Thursday, Sept 20, 2012, at the State Street steps of the Madison Capitol at 7 PM.  Come watch what real Americans do (they act civilized and pray), stand in solidarity with Christians for religious freedom in America.  All are welcome to watch, to listen, or to pray.

Discussing the Actual Issue

Something else Doug Erickson failed to do in his Capitol Rosary article was to discuss the question that his progressive friends raised; is it legal for Catholics to pray the rosary at Madison’s Capitol Square?

First Congressional Prayer, 1777

Answer:
Public prayer is legal.
The National Day of Prayer was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals  and President Obama supported prayer in a Presidential Proclamation on the National Day of Prayer, 2012
Congress has also just taken steps to ensure that prayer is supported at School Board Meetings.   President Obama prays and states that “We stand for religious freedom.”

So public prayer is legal, and public gatherings at the Wisconsin State Capitol are legal.

Public gatherings at Madison’s Capitol have included Farmer’s Markets, restaurant showcase events (Taste of Madison), and Wisconsin Capitol Pride, an event promoting LGBTQA acceptance and rights.
Why would Catholic gatherings be forbidden?  Why would promoting prayer for religious freedom be forbidden?

Discussing the Double Standard

WSJ failed to address this double standard of progressive Rosary critics in the article.
The progressive Rosary Hecklers quoted by WSJ demand freedom of belief and freedom of speech for themselves, but not for others.  They want the right to scream four-letter words at others across Capitol Square in the presence of children, but to forbid the words “Our Father, who art in heaven.”

Further Important Issues Omitted by the WSJ report:

• Validity of Christian claims regarding the violation of religious freedom by the HHS mandate
• Evaluation of the position of America’s moral leaders on the religious freedom issue
• Reporting the obvious differences in behavior, lawfulness and respect for the rights of others between the rosary participants and the heckling critics.

• Definition of “separation of Church and State.”
• Discussion of whether a once-in-14-prayer-rallies mention of two pro-life politicians constitutes a “violation of separation of Church and State.”
• Discussion of the very pertinent 1954 IRS code amendment, which has been used by the IRS to silence Christian pastors, but has not been subject to an examination of constitutionality by the courts.
• The effect that restrictions on religious freedom would have on the rights of progressives when in the future conservative Presidents are elected, and the effect on this country’s historical role as the safe haven for the world’s émigrés.

Suggestion: if Doug Erickson is to be the WSJ “religion” reporter, he must examine the serious issues affecting religion, rather than using his status at the WSJ to spread progressive propaganda. He should provide some professional and journalisticly ethical analysis of real religious issues.

Shame on the Wisconsin State Journal for Ethics Violations

Shame on Doug Erickson

The Wisconsin State Journal has violated the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics with this misrepresentation of Madison’s Capitol Rosary Rally.

• WSJ did not seek the truth and report it.
• WSJ did not minimize harm.
• WSJ did not act independently.
• WSJ was not accountable.

Renaming the Wisconsin State Journal

The Wisconsin State Journal should be renamed:

the Wisconsin State Journal Progressive

Invitation: Come and Join Us!

Come tonight, and every Thursday night at 7PM through November 1^st.

Join Catholics today in the 14^th Capitol Rosary Rally –  Thursday, Sept 20, 2012, on the State Street steps of the Madison Capitol at 7 PM.
Come watch what most Americans do (they act civilized and they pray).
Stand in solidarity with Christians for religious freedom in America.
All are welcome to watch, to listen, or to pray.

Agnostics welcome.
Atheists welcome.
Baptists welcome.
Buddhists welcome.
Catholics welcome.
Evangelicals welcome.
Jews welcome.
Lutherans welcome.
Muslims welcome
Presbyterians welcome.
All welcome, including any not mentioned above.
Invitation limited to well-behaved people who respect the rights of others.

All of us need, and will benefit from, freedom of religion (of belief), which is guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.  This freedom has been violated by President Obama’s HHS Mandate, a mandate which must be reversed.

Why Even Atheists Should Stand Against Presidential Mandates

If Presidents of the future will be permitted to issue mandates like the HHS Mandate, without popular vote, without Senate or House vote, and without Supreme Court evaluation, what mandate will the NEXT President of the United States, who may not belong to your favorite political affiliation, decree?

I may not like President Obama’s mandates.
But others, including atheists, would not like President Romney’s mandates
or President Rick Santorum’s mandates
or President Ron Paul’s mandates
or President Michelle Bachmann’s mandates.

The next President could issue a Mandate that imposes tax penalties not on Catholics, but on  International Workers Union Members,  FFRF Members, Solidarity Singers, and Madison LGBT activists-  severe, crippling penalties.  Then were would Craig, Annie, Genie and Bluebird be?  The Mandate could include penalties for Wisconsin Sate Journal reporters, too, Doug.

We all benefit from supporting freedom and democracy.
We have to coexist, so progressives should realize that in 46 days the shoe might be on the other foot.
This is still a democracy, and Presidential mandates are thinly disguised despotic edicts.

These are some of the religious, ethical and cultural issues that Doug Erickson and the WSJ should be discussing, rather than spreading the speculations of fringe progressives on the motivation of Catholics.

Soggy Solstice?

While the President of the United States in on the verge of  a scandal equivalent to Nixon’s Watergate,
…..and…..
the Supreme Court of the United States is on the verge of a historical decision on ObamaCare that will redefine the powers and balance of government in the United States,
…..and…..
the Catholic Church, the largest religious denomination in the United States is calling for prayer for liberty  “in this decisive hour in the history of our nation,”

what do you think made the front page of MSNBC news?
The Soggy Solstice.
Newsflash: It rained in England.

The 0.1 of 1% of Americans who are pagans will be very happy to know.
The rest of us, 100% Americans, 80% Christians, and 25% Catholics, can find the real news elsewhere.

P.S. For the 80% Christians: Come to the Fortnight for Freedom tonight; 7 PM July 21st, 2012, at the Wisconsin State Capitol, on the State Street steps.

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 opposed by 72% of the American people, who oppose the federal funding of abortion.

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

• A proclamation, which has the potential to shut down all Catholic religious service institutions in the US within 2 years (with penalties for non-compliance).

• A proclamation which would cost the United States $100 Billion if Catholic Hospitals were to close.

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