Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Some Moral Clarity on Pro Abortion Politicians

Finally, we are seeing some moral clarity from our leaders in the Church. I pray this won't be the last leader to boldly speak the truth.
h/t Catholic Knight


(Inside Catholic) - Throughout his 50-minute address, the archbishop returned again and again to the scandal of Catholic politicians who support abortion or same-sex marriage. He did not mince his words:

"It is not possible to be a practicing Catholic and to conduct oneself in this manner.""Neither Holy Communion nor funeral rites should be administered to such politicians," said Archbishop Burke. "To deny these is not a judgment of the soul, but a recognition of the scandal and its effects."With obvious reference to the Kennedy funeral, he argued that when a politician is associated "with greatly sinful acts about fundamental questions like abortion and marriage, his repentance must also be public." He added, "Anyone who grasps the gravity of what he has done will understand the need to make it public."It's not uncharitable to point out the scandal caused by these Catholic politicians. "The Church's unity is founded on speaking the truth in love. This does not destroy unity but helps to repair a breach in the life of the Church."read full story here

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Archbishop Raymond Burke, does not mince words. You cannot be Catholic and "pro-choice" or support so-called "homosexual rights." The highest judicial authority in the Catholic Church is laying the law down with American clergy, particularly Cardinal Seán P. O'Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston, after having permitted a "Catholic" funeral for the pro-abortion, pro-gay-rights Senator Ted Kennedy.

It's about time! I'm afraid however, it's going to take a lot more then speeches. The Holy Father is going to have to start implementing disciplinary action, reassignments, and early retirements for many bishops in the United States. Cardinal O'Malley is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Catholic Knight did not mince words on this matter either. In a previous entry (see here) I railed against the Kennedy funeral scandal, pointing out why it was wrong, in a manner similar to the recent argument used by Archbishop Burke. I love it when my positions are vindicated by Prefects within the Vatican!

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Death of a Thugocracy

I really hope Team Dear Leader is paying attention to these events. Of course, once the revolution is finished and the regime has been disposed of, watch for Dear Leader to claim that he helped and supported the revolution by not meddling...but, maybe on the other hand, given his less than stellar track record of end results of meddling, maybe that was a good idea after all. Somehow though, I doubt the next leader of Iran will view his silence on the rape, torture and murder of possibly thousands of Iranian protestors as "a good thing". Stay tuned though, there is still much more to come from these brave Iranian people.

From Pajamas Media

September 21st, 2009 9:59 am
The Death Spiral of the Islamic Republic III
Michael Leeden

Marx would have delighted in the events of the 18th, all over Iran. Groucho, that is, for on the 18th the supreme leader and all his co-conspirators were transformed from figures of awe to objects of ridicule. As Machiavelli likes to remind us, the most dangerous thing for any leader is to earn the contempt of his followers, and the Iranian people made it luminously clear that they would no longer be intimidated. The regime had launched a vicious repression following the challenges to the “election results” of June 12th. For a hundred days they had killed, raped, tortured and threatened. In the runup to the 18th, the stern face of the leader of the Revolutionary Guards had appeared on television and his confident voice had been heard on the radio, warning that anyone who dared wear green, or carry protest signs, or chant criticism of the Islamic Republic, would be treated “very harshly.” His words were like so much spittle in a storm; among the many chants in the streets that day, you could hear “rape, murder and torture will not silence us.”

When a tyrannical regime dies, you can see the symptoms in the little things. Late Friday afternoon, after millions (yes, millions–this according to Le Monde, France 2, and L’Express, with the BBC saying that the demonstrations were bigger than those at the time of the Revolution) of Greens mobbed the streets and squares of more than thirty towns and cities to call for the end of the regime, there was a soccer game in Azadi Stadium in Tehran. It holds about a hundred thousand fans, and it was full of men wearing green and carrying green balloons. When state-run tv saw what was happening, the color was drained from the broadcast, and viewers saw the game in black and white. And when the fans began to chant “Death to the Dictator,” “Death to Russia,” and “Death to Putin, Chavez and Nasrallah, enemies of Iran,” the sound was shut off. So the game turned into a silent movie.
But the censors forgot about the radio, and the microphones stayed open, so that millions of listeners could hear the sounds of the revolution. And in Azadi Stadium, as in most parts of the country, the security officers either walked away or joined the party.

You will not have heard such stories, nor read about them in our “media,” which have raised denial of the day’s major events to an art form of late. Rather like the Iranian regime, which used to have an enormous influence on the way citizens thought, the major broadcasters and dead-tree scribblers have also become objects of ridicule. On Sunday morning, Supreme Leader Khamenei proclaimed that the demonstrations had been an enormous success for the regime, but anyone looking at the pictures could see that he was short on sleep. So would you if you had heard the thunderous shouts of “Death to the Dictator” during the night. Khamenei’s claim was greeted with ridicule.

Sunday also brought open contempt from some of the most revered leaders of the Shi’ite world. Khamene’i had declared Sunday the end of Ramadan, a day of feasts and prayers, one of the most joyous of the Muslim year. Such a proclamation is supposed to be canonical, for Khamene’i speaks in the name of all Muslims. But fifteen Grand Ayatollahs like Sistani (from Najaf, Iraq), Montazeri, Taheri and Sanei rejected Khamenei’s reading of the moon, and said that the feast could not begin until Monday. No one could get away with such an open challenge to the supreme leader’s theological authority unless there were a considerable consensus that his rule was illegitimate. And it’s even worse for him: across the country, many mosques were closed on Sunday. The faithful were told to go home and fast, and come back the next day for prayer.

No wonder Khamenei looks tired. And in keeping with the avalanche of errors, today the Revolutionary Guards’ favorite newspaper kept the whole thing going, insisting that the supreme leader was right after all. Stupid and irrelevant, a classic example of people in a hole who keep digging deeper.

These little stories illustrate a great event, indeed a world-changing event: the death of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, and the rest of the evil empire in Tehran, are all dead men walking. We don’t know the schedule for the funeral yet, but Iranians know it’s on the agenda. One will get you ten at my betting window that, aside from a very thin veneer of top officials (for whom there is no hope, for they will fulfill the demand of the nightly rooftop chants), anyone who is anyone in Iran today is trying to make a deal with Mousavi and Karroubi. They are all whispering that their hearts are green, and always were green.

Khamenei & Co. certainly know this, as they know they are being betrayed by some very high-ranking people. And the exodus is under way; by the end of the week we will see some important representatives of the Islamic Republic resign their posts, for they do not wish to be associated with it any longer.

Look at what didn’t happen in the streets last Friday. Not a shot was fired at the millions of demonstrators in Tehran. There are YouTubes of police fraternizing with the Greens. There are stories of Revolutionary Guardsmen helping the demonstrators, and even the Basij didn’t dare to attack or arrest, with a handful of exceptions (one of which is notable: in Tabriz, if I remember correctly, they started to round up some people, and the crowd turned on them, freed the would-be victims, and beat the Basijis to death).

And look at what else didn’t happen: nobody tried to arrest Mousavi or Karroubi. Somebody tried to stab Khatami in the street, but it was thwarted, and Karroubi has been told to show up at a Revolutionary Tribunal to respond to charges of spreading false claims of rape and murder in the prisons. But this subpoena, which previously terrified the recipient, is no longer threatening. Karroubi has proclaimed it is good news, for it will give him the opportunity to present the evidence, which is iron-clad, and can no longer be destroyed (copies of documents, audios and videos are now in the hands of Green supporters in Europe and the United States).

So we have a regime of zombies in Tehran, but they can still do a lot of damage, to Iranians and to us. Early last week Khamenei summoned Afghan terrorist chieftain Gulbadin Hekhmatiar to Tehran, and told him to step up attacks against American and other Allied forces. Other Iranian-supported terrorist groups have received similar instructions.

Under the circumstances, you’d think that your government would be talking to the Greens. But you’d be wrong. Perhaps Hillary Clinton thought she was telling the truth when she claimed, a few days after the insurrection of June 12th, that “behind the scenes” we were helping the Iranian opposition. If so, she shouldn’t have said anything about it, but I don’t think she was well informed. There are no contacts between the American Government and the leaders of the opposition. One should not expect the new government to look kindly upon a President Obama who publicly sweet-talked the Tehran butchers, and all but begged Khamenei for a few minutes of his precious time. The same applies to the Europeans, all of whom scrambled for oil and other commercial contracts, and none of whom talked to the Green leaders.

As so often, Martin Luther King Jr. summed it up perfectly: “In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

Thursday, September 17, 2009

When I forget

Sometimes, I get so busy with reading and blogging and fighting daily skirmishes with the locals in my hometown paper, I forget how good and glorious the power of the Holy Spirit is for us. I read this story just a little while ago. I've been under the weather for a week now, but because I have people to take care of and obligations to meet, I keep going, but I'm getting worn down. The new nastiness of politics is getting harder to deal with, especially when it is in your hometown. Just as i was getting ready to call it a night, I saw this headline and said "ok, one more."

It is an amazing and inspiring story to read. Her story renews my courage for the pro-life fight we have on our hands with the new healthcare "bill". This is woman is so courageous.

By Hilary White
September 11, 2009 ( - A British policewoman and born-again Christian says it was a sudden and unexpected "rush of love" that in her mind transformed her unborn child, conceived in a date-rape, from "an alien" to a beloved daughter on the day of her scheduled abortion. Miriam Virgo credits God with stepping in to save her daughter's life.

Now 27, Virgo told her story in an autobiographical piece in Britain's Daily Mail yesterday, saying that, having come from a devout Christian family, she had never expected to find herself a single mother at 19. In 2001, she had attended a party with co-workers at which she believes her single glass of wine was spiked with a date-rape drug. After the attack and with no memory of that night, Virgo was shocked to find herself pregnant and considered obtaining an abortion.

"Coming from such a Christian family," she said, "I've never believed in abortion, but suddenly finding myself pregnant with a rapist's baby, I looked at it differently." She continued, "I just couldn't face the thought of the baby being born and looking like Rob [her alleged rapist] - it would be a constant reminder of what had happened."

After "counselling," Virgo said, she was ready for an abortion; but when the moment came, and she was already dressed in the hospital gown, she changed her mind after what she describes as a moment of help from God.

Ultimately, after she gave birth to Kayleigh, now seven, she found that the child did look like her attacker, and she experienced some difficulty bonding. But ultimately she overcame this, saying, "After all, none of this was her fault." A year after her daughter's birth, Virgo applied to and was accepted by the police force.

She said that when Kayleigh is old enough, she will tell her of the circumstances of her conception, and "I'll also tell her about the moment I decided to keep her, and how I felt all this love for her, love that is even stronger now."

In another interview, Virgo said, "God knew what my life would be without the girl and he knew what it would be with the girl. I prayed to God and asked for his will to be done in my life."

The so-called "rape exception" is commonly accepted, even by many who are inclined to the pro-life position, as a "compassionate" act for a rape victim. But pro-life apologists refute this, saying that it is neither just for the innocent child who is killed, nor beneficial for the mother.

Stephanie Gray, the head and founder of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, told that Miriam Virgo's story should be one that inspires others to make the same choice in favor of life.

It illustrates, she said, the basic principle of the entire pro-life cause, that an unborn child has dignity and value, no matter what the circumstances of her conception. "If the unborn are valuable because they're human," Gray said, "then how they come into existence does not change the fact that they are persons with inherent dignity."

Gray illustrated the principle with a hypothetical: had Virgo been married and "had consensual sex with her husband the night prior to her date rape, upon discovering her pregnancy she would not have known the identity of the child's father."

"Imagine if she hoped it was her husband's child and carried on with the pregnancy, and only after birth, with paternity test results, discovered the child's father was a rapist. Would she be permitted to kill the infant then because of the father's crime? Obviously not. Likewise, we may not kill an unborn child because of her father's crime."

Gray said that Virgo's "witness is a powerful example to all people, and that is that we should be other-focused, not self-focused."

"Even amidst her own victimization and deep pain, Miriam chose not to victimize an innocent child."

Obama = Malignant Narcissist?

From American Thinker

September 16, 2009
Is Obama a Narcissist?By Robin of Berkeley

Many of us are asking ourselves the million dollar question: are Obama and his crew narcissists?
(Translation: What in God's name is wrong with these people? Are they on medications? Are they off their medications?

Are we being unknowingly subjected to some new reality show, Extreme Alien Invasion?)
Now as a newbie conservative, I have a long way to go to herald myself as an expert on conservatism, neoconservatism, paleoconservatism (whatever that is), and the like.
But one thing I do know is crazy -- and that's not just because I've been a licensed psychotherapist for over 20 years. It's because for almost 30 years I've been eating, sleeping, and living with crazy, what I have dubbed the Psycho Network.

There are plenty of nice folks around these parts (although mention the words Sarah Palin or Tea Parties and they'll morph into Linda Blair in the Exorcist). But we also have lots of Bernadine Dohrn look-alikes who appear to have just crawled out from some prehistoric rock.
So, let me take a stab at the burning question of Obama's mental health status.

Is Obama a garden variety narcissist? Probably, but that's the least of our problems.
Most highly successful people have some level of narcissism. Generally it's the narcissists -- charming, self serving, deficient in morals -- who rise to the top. The nice guys and gals who aren't willing to step on their grandmothers for fame and fortune are usually us worker bees.

Obnoxious and madly in love with themselves, narcissists are a pain in the butt to have as a friend, spouse, in-law, or boss. They are self-absorbed, and mesmerized by their own image. They love to be around people, and are genuinely puzzled when others find them a turn-off.
But while they can be major thorns in your side, they're too busy swooning over themselves to try to control the planet. They think they're hot stuff, but not the Messiah.

Now Obama, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, the Emanuel bros -- we may be talking something way more worrisome than your everyday narcissists. Let's take a look at other character defects, as well as examine another disorder entirely.

A more serious type of character disorder is a paranoia. Paranoids think that everyone is out to get them. Nothing is ever their fault. They are Gripe Central, and vividly recall every single insult or offense. Paranoids are unhappy, suspicious, resentful, and mistrustful.
Ringing any bells here?

At the extreme end of the continuum is the sociopath (also known as a psychopath). These are dangerous people who are not completely human, in my book. They lack a conscience and view themselves as above the law. They don't like people, and are devoid of empathy.

It would be nice if sociopaths looked deranged and so were easy to spot. No such luck; they can be the pillars of the community. (Think OJ or Scott Peterson, who killed his pregnant wife Laci.)
Interestingly, many sociopaths can easily pass a lie detector test -- they are that good at lying. While nonsociopaths will sweat during the grilling and set off the detector, sociopaths remain calm, cool, and detached.

There's also another whole classification -- delusional disorders. These people look perfectly fine but have fixed beliefs that don't mesh with reality.

If you've ever wrangled with an anorexic, you've dealt with someone with a delusion. Though she is emaciated, faints from hunger, and weighs 90 pounds, she insists she's fat.
Or a delusional addict believes he doesn't have a problem with coke and can stop at any time. Meanwhile, he's clocked some serious jail time, lost his job, and his fed-up wife has flown the coop.

A great example of a delusional disorder? Members of a cult. They believe the leader has special powers, and that they are the chosen ones. (Sound familiar?)

Now, when people ask whether Obama is a narcissist, they may not be talking about a garden variety narcissist. M. Scott Peck in his brilliant book, People of the Lie, describes the malignant narcissist (MN), a term coined by Erich Fromm.

Peck is describing a very dangerous creature capable of great evil -- the Hitler's of the world, as well as the SS guards. His MN is a witch's brew of psychopathology: a narcissist, sociopath, and paranoid, with a generous dollop of delusional disorder thrown in.

While I'm not in a position to offer a definite diagnosis about Obama, there are reasons to be concerned about his character and his ability to look reality squarely in the face. Here are some of my impressions and observations.

To become well functioning adults, humans need to have completed two tasks: 1. to have learned to attach to people, thereby developing empathy and 2. to have formed a firm and solid identity via healthy role models.

Yet, Obama was raised with an odd assortment of characters who seemed to have no clue about the emotional needs of a child. Obama was dragged like a rag doll all over the place, and subjected to conditions that had to be disturbing and alienating.

Abandoned by both his parents, Obama's life circumstances were unstable and ever-changing. According to half sister Maya, they were "untethered. . . .drifting in and out of worlds, here and there."

Obama Sr. deserted them to return to his other wife in Kenya (you read this right). Little Barry lived with his mother, then was schlepped to Indonesia to live for several years with mom and new step dad and half sister Maya.

Step dad turned out to be an alcoholic like dad, and mom ferried the kids back to the States. Then she decided to return to Indonesia, though Obama refused to go. He ended up living in Hawaii with his grandparents.

Obama had this to say about moving in with his grandparents: "I was to live with strangers." And: "I'd arrived at an unspoken pact with my grandparents; I could live with them and they'd leave me alone so long as I kept my troubles out of sight."
Feel the love?

His grandpa, Stanley, sounded like he had a few screws loose. He was likely damaged goods from his hellish childhood. First, his dad abandoned the family. When Stanley was 8, he discovered the dead body of his mother, who had committed suicide. He was shipped off to his grandparents and got himself expelled from school for punching the principal.

Stanley drifted along himself, eventually joined the military, and married Madelyn. He was disappointed when she produced a baby girl (Obama's mother) rather than a son. In a bizarre and grandiose act, he named her "Stanley." Sick and tired of getting grief for her name, Stanley ended up going by her middle name, Ann.
Stanley and Madelyn raised Obama from around age l0 through high school. Stanley, an impulsive and hard drinking man, made one of the most twisted of parental decisions -- to have Barry mentored by the elderly Frank Marshall Davis, purportedly a Communist who worked on behalf of the Soviet Union; a pedophile who wrote a book entitled "Sex Rebel: Black," an alcoholic, a racist, and a misogynist.

Well regarded bloggers have raised the provocative question about whether Davis violated Obama, perhaps by molesting him. (Read Obama's college era poem Pop, especially the lines, "Pop. . . points out the same amber stain on his shorts that I've got on mine, and makes me smell his smell, coming from me," and see what you think.)

Obama himself has said, in his autobiography, that "Frank" made him feel uncomfortable. Grandpa Stanley and Davis would sit around getting loaded, talking trash about women, and making up smutty limericks.

Whether Davis sexually abused Obama or not, Davis made a lasting impression on his young psyche. Davis blamed racism and capitalism for all of the problems in society and instructed young Barry, "Don't fully trust white people," and "Black people have a reason to hate."
Obama's identity was ever in flux until he linked up with Davis. Now he had beliefs he could wrap his mind around -- rage at the system. Obama apparently became filled with resentment and anger even though he lived a privileged life in Hawaii.

As an adult, Obama sought out other people who reinforced and hardened this world view: black nationalists, like Rev. Wright; 60's terrorists, such as Bill Ayers; wife Michelle, who never felt pride in this country, regardless of a Princeton education, cushy attorney jobs, and a million dollar mansion. Chillingly, some of these people, like Rev. Wright, anointed Obama a messiah, which may have only magnified Obama's false pride and delusions of grandeur.

Obama could have gone down one of two roads. One was to face the truth about his life, regardless of the shame, hurt, and grief this would evoke. But Obama chose another path, the one that allowed him to save face; he made the personal political.

His father didn't choose to desert him; racism was at fault. His mother didn't abandon him; the system was to blame. Obama's grandparents didn't corrupt him by giving a creepy guy like Davis personal access to him; they were acting like "typical white [people]".

Obama, I think, created another reality by blaming white America for his family's faults. It's a pattern he's continued his whole life; his associates are also allergic to personal accountability.
I picture Obama as a man crying out that he's thirsty although he's standing knee high in a fresh water stream. He's been blessed by the fortunes of a king -- prestigious private schools and universities, a lavish home in Chicago, two healthy little girls, state Senate and US Senate appointments, and now the Presidency.

And yet deep down, I believe that Obama is still the wounded, angry little boy whose parents abandoned him and. Rather than resent and mourn them, he's turned his rage on a more convenient target -- the entire United States system -- even though it's that very same system of largely White Americans who elected him President.

Is there anything more to Obama et al. than their righteous indignation? Their seething anger? Their leftist dogma?

These are crucial questions because "People of the Lie" eat, sleep, and drink rage. They are dangerous people because they are soulless, and the soul is where love, forgiveness, and truth live. They're like fallen angels; there is no there there.

Are Obama and his closest advisors, "People of the Lie" -- malignant narcissists? God, I hope not.

Here are some words of wisdom from M. Scott Peck, and you can rein in on the diagnosis.
The evil are ‘people of the lie', deceiving others as they build layer upon layer of self-deception. . . . Forever fleeing the light of self-exposure and the voice of their own conscience, they are the most frightened of human beings. They live their lives in sheer terror. They need not be consigned to any hell, they are already living in it.

Evil may be recognized by its very disguise.... We see the smile that hides the hatred, the smooth and oily manner that masks the fury, the velvet glove that covers the fist....

The evil hate the light -- the light of goodness that shows them up, the light of scrutiny that exposes them, the light of truth that penetrates their deception.

Information on Obama's childhood drawn from the books, The Case Against Barack Obama, and The Obama Nation, as well as Wikipedia
A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.Page

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Whats the Big Deal About Swine Flu?

September 06, 2009
Swine Flu: Path to Martial Law?
By John Griffing

Could a form of martial law be imminent? Obama appears ready to cross the Rubicon, and all he needs is a killer virus.

Let’s connect some dots.

Remember President Obama’s Executive Order
basing 80,000 active troops at home for the first time in the history of the peacetime military establishment to “help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack….”

Now connect that information to the recent announcement that the military has
established regional deployment locations all across the United States to “assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials.”

Civil unrest and crowd control? Significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall? What do they know that we don’t?

Swine flu has been made into a crisis in the minds of the public, even though swine flu, or H1N1, is the most non-lethal “killer” virus ever
uncovered. As a cataclysmic event demanding military assistance, it ranks near zero. It is doubtful whether swine flu could even be classified as an “epidemic,” much less a “pandemic.”

Regular influenza, the common flu, kills 36,000 people
every year. The 1918 flu pandemic killed an estimated 50-100 million people worldwide over a period of two years, approximately one-third the population of Europe at that time. Global swine flu deaths topped just 1,000 this year.

But President Obama is predicting death tolls of 90,000 and possible infection of up to half the US population.

While every life matters, in statistical terms swine flu is a comparatively minor problem, which makes the hype by those in government and the military all the more suspicious.

The National Guard is even practicing mock takeovers of public schools in the event of an “H1N1 riot,” a description that elicits
mixed responses. What kind of riot could arise out of a flu that has only killed 1,000 worldwide? Washington certainly seems to be looking for some rationale for enhanced domestic military involvement, whether credible or not.

Martial law has essentially been on the table since President Obama took office, thanks to the Bush Administration’s
dramatic revisions of the Posse Comitatus Act —which limited deployment of the US military at home—in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. With impeccable timing, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has gone before Congress asking for the unprecedented authority to base 400,000 soldiers in communities all across the United States.

A recent US Army War College Report even outlined the conditions under which martial law could be introduced,
…unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters are all paths to disruptive domestic shock. [Emphasis added.]

The CDC is finalizing quarantine regulations formulated during the Bush years that provide for
quarantining “a large group of persons” suspected of having swine flu or other illnesses listed in an executive order. This means that President Obama can quarantine anyone as long as they have an illness he determines to be dangerous. These new regulations even permit "provisional" quarantine of persons not actually carrying any virus. In one section, the regulations empower the president to quarantine anyone that does not agree to be vaccinated, an ominous condition since recent investigations have revealed that swine flu vaccines can cause serious medical complications. Thousands of doctors have voiced strong opposition to the proposed swine flu vaccine, due to its association with neurological disorders. No matter, a bill before the Massachusetts State Senate would permit authorities to enter homes and detain without warrant citizens who do not agree to be forcibly vaccinated. Iowa just released a new Orwellian quarantine policy directive that states in the event of a swine flu outbreak, “your home and other less restrictive alternatives are not acceptable.” These moves appear to be the result of federal incentives advancing mandatory vaccination.

The Army hasn’t missed a step, putting
out ads for “Internment/Resettlement Specialists.” And, though most of the wild claims about “FEMA camps” have been appropriately and properly discredited, the fact remains that the Homeland Security Department has signed a $385 million contract with Halliburton subsidiary KBR Construction to build such facilities on an “as-needed” basis.

If you’re not already feeling nervous, revisit President Obama’s spine-chilling campaign pledge:
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.With the Serve America Act, this alarming proposition has become reality. The broad authority given to this force is staggering. Section 1505 gives the newly created National Civilian Community Corps the power to address national “needs” related to “natural and other disasters,” “infrastructure improvement,” “environmental stewardship and conservation,” “energy conservation,” and “urban and rural development.” The legislation reiterates that the corps will “combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service.”

Nowhere have these two spheres ever been combined that tyranny has not resulted.

If these recent events were mere coincidence, Americans could peacefully go about their business. But Obama is no ordinary President. This is the man who began his political career in
the home of terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, former members of the notorious Weather Underground that plotted the deaths of 25 million Americans in "re-education camps."

Even so, it sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Mass internment and quarantine of Americans? Martial law used illegally to quell opposition to government policies? After all, this is America, not some banana republic.

But this is not the America of even 10 years ago. This is President Obama’s brave new America. Differences of opinion are
criminalized, violating freedom of conscience in the deepest sense. Freedom of the press is assaulted with newspaper “bailouts” and diversity requirements imposed on local radio stations. Children face the possibility of weeklong, year-round education, effectively circumventing parents and making children wards of the state. Czars govern in the place of elected officials. Key private sector companies are now under the direct control of the President.

The President has even proven willing to use healthcare reform to target the
elderly, recasting human life in terms of the collective good. The White House has even urged fellow citizens to inform on opponents of Obama’s healthcare bill. In this environment, the prospect of martial law doesn’t sound that far-fetched.

But isn’t this unconstitutional? No matter. The Constitution means nothing to President Obama, who has repeatedly implied
the need to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution….”

Thomas Jefferson had a different view:
Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism...In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

But when the President considers the Constitution to be nothing more than an archaic suggestion, no travesty is unthinkable. And the unthinkable is only a manufactured flu pandemic away. I desperately hope I am wrong in connecting these dots, but in light of the President’s stated agenda, and his known track record on
ethical issues, the possibility of abuses must be considered. After all, stranger things have happened.

True Catholic Social Teaching

From American Thinker

September 06, 2009
ObamaCare and Catholic social teachingBy Mark Wauk

The 9/2/09 issue of the Wall Street Journal, in its Notable and Quotable feature, calls attention to an important article that Roman Catholic Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, published in his diocesan newspaper on the subject of health care and health care reform. The article is important for two reasons: first, because there has been and continues to be a certain amount of confusion regarding Catholic social teaching as it affects health care; second, because Bishop Nickless goes to great lengths to base his discussion on principles, and not merely on tactical considerations.

Bishop Nickless begins by noting the importance of the ongoing debate over proposed reforms of our health care system:
"There is much at stake in this political struggle, and also much confusion and inaccurate information being thrown around. My brother bishops have described some clear "goal-posts" to mark out what is acceptable reform, and what must be rejected. First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research."

After further noting particular concerncs for Catholic hospitals and health care professionals -- the possibility that the Government would attempt to force them to act in violation of Catholic teaching as well as in violation of their consciences--Bishop Nickless concludes:
"A so-called reform that imposes these evils on us would be far worse than keeping the health care system we now have."

However, Bishop Nickless doesn't stop here. He goes on to enunciate several additional considerations of great importance. The bishop's second point gets to the heart of the role that government should play in health care:
"Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that "health care" as such, without distinction, is a natural right. The "natural right" of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion. As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care. We reject the rationing of care. Those who are sickest should get the most care, regardless of age, status, or wealth. But how to do this is not self-evident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under "prudential judgment."

In other words, provision of health care must ultimately rest on prudential considerations that affect an entire society. Broad assertions of generalized "rights" without reference to underlying prudential considerations are not helpful. The relevant considerations include need, but also cost. Another important prudential consideration, however, is this: who should be the main provider of health care, government or the private sector? Bishop Nickless insists that health care provision is not only not a central concern of government as such, it is also likely to introduce harmful economic and policy distortions:

"Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good - it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible - health care should not be subject to federal monopolization.

Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past. While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined "best procedures," which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect."

Clearly, there is much that could be said on this score. Nevertheless, Bishop Nickless' reflections are an excellent starting point for any constructive discussion of these important issues. Bishop Nickless places his own considerations in the context of demographic considerations:

"The best way in practice to approach this balance of public and private roles is to spread the risks and costs of health care over the largest number of people. This is the principle underlying Medicaid and Medicare taxes, for example. But this principle assumes that the pool of taxable workers is sufficiently large, compared to those who draw the benefits, to be reasonably inexpensive and just. ... Without a growing population of youth, our growing population of retirees is outstripping our distribution systems. In a culture of death such as we have now, taxation to redistribute costs of medical care becomes both unjust and unsustainable."

I, personally, would suggest that further consideration needs to be given to the entire notion of taxation to redistribute costs. Obviously, this occurs in many areas of our politics: national defense, public works, etc. Just as obviously, when joined to false notions of "natural rights," and a failure to consider the human dignity that and emphasis on individual responsibility fosters, the redistributive use of taxation has led to many controversial and even "unjust" abuses of the government power to tax (my quotes refer to Bishop Nickless' words, above). The power to tax is, after all, the power to destroy, and that destruction can have not only economic consequences but moral consequences as well.

Bishop Nickless appears to assume that Medicaid and Medicare were, initially in any event, established on a sound principle. Without getting into the the particulars, which are far beyond my expertise, I think that is an area that would needs to be closely reexamined before moving on to adoption of any new reforms.That Bishop Nickless is open to such discussions, and that the considerations involved are central to Catholic social teaching, becomes apparent from the bishop's final point. That point addresses the whole issue of preventive care which, as several recent studies have shown, can actually greatly increase health care costs.

Bishop Nickless places the primary responsibility squarely on the individual:
"Fourth, preventative care is a moral obligation of the individual to God and to his or her family and loved ones, not a right to be demanded from society. The gift of life comes only from God; to spurn that gift by seriously mistreating our own health is morally wrong. The most effective preventative care for most people is essentially free - good diet, moderate exercise, and sufficient sleep. But pre-natal and neo-natal care are examples of preventative care requiring medical expertise, and therefore cost; and this sort of care should be made available to all as far as possible."

The caveat "as far as possible" is a strong indication that Bishop Nickless, in the context of Catholic social teaching, does indeed recognize that cost is an important part of the entire health care equation. No society can morally devote an endlessly increasingly portion of its resources to a poorly structured health care system, while ignoring the long term financial health of its future generations.Having enunciated these four principles and their related goals, Bishop Nickless asks the all-important question: "Will the current health care reform proposals achieve these goals?" His answer is a firm: No. Not only would all current House and Senate proposals introduce government subsidized abortion (and likely several other morally objectionable features), but these proposals would strike at the heart of private sector health care provision.

The House proposal "provides a "public insurance option" without adequate limits, so that smaller employers especially will have a financial incentive to push all their employees into this public insurance. This will effectively prevent those employees from choosing any private insurance plans. This will saddle the working classes with additional taxes for inefficient and immoral entitlements."

And the Senate proposal would also "impinge on the vitality of the private sector" through various provisions.Bishop Nickless' resounding conclusion:
"I encourage all of you to make you voice heard to our representatives in Congress. Tell them what they need to hear from us: no health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform. Insist that they not permit themselves to be railroaded into the current too-costly and pro-abortion health care proposals. Insist on their support for proposals that respect the life and dignity of every human person, especially the unborn. And above all, pray for them, and for our country.

Bishop Nickless' article begins at and continues at

Thursday, September 3, 2009

August is Over

The long, contentious month of August is over. Congress will be heading back to their "jobs" next week with an ear full of their constituents' heartfelt opinions.

In the next days, leading up to the House vote on HR3200, we will see an onslaught of propaganda from the left, who will tell us we are not seeing what we are seeing(in the bill), we are not smart enought to know what we are seeing, and even if we are smart enough, Uncle Barack knows best and we need to sit down, shut up, and be grateful that we have a government that is willing to take care of us from the moment we are born until the moment they choose to allow us to die.

The magic of Dear Leader seems to have melted away as poll after poll show just how well informed the American people have become and are no longer listening to the Demagogue in Chief. I think Dear Leader is in real trouble now and I can't help but wonder how he will react if HR3200 goes down in defeat. Will we see him take a step back and decide that maybe he really does need bi-partisan support? Perhaps.

But, I have a feeling he will react in the true Chicago way once again, just what that will mean for the average civic minded American, I cannot know, but in recent weeks we've seen the "fishy" line at the WhiteHouse, tracking cookies placed on all governement websites, a move to place the entire internet under government control, and now this from Doug Ross

"NLPC has uncovered a plan by the White House New Media operation to hire a technology vendor to conduct a massive, secret effort to harvest personal information on millions of Americans from social networking websites... The targeted sites include Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and others – any space where the White House “maintains a presence.”(EDIT**HotAir has taken a fresh look at this story and thinks it's not quite as creepy as it appeared--that it is little more than an "archiving" project--my question--why? Why do they need to "archive" and of course they claim to be very concerned about privacy(how does this work with the Privacy Act of 1974?)--and of course we have all seen just how good the government is at keeping private items private and of course everyone in the current administration only has our best interests at heart so there's no reason to think the information could be misused, so there's nothing to worry about, ...really...right? )

Of course, the Obots will be out in force telling us we aren't seeing what we are seeing, we aren't smart enough to know what we are seeing, and even if we are smart enough, Uncle Barack knows what is best and we should just sit down, shut up, and be grateful!
From American Thinker: September 02, 2009
Sarah Palin vs. Dr. Death
By Stuart Schwartz
Ezekiel Emanuel is upset. The president's health care czar sees the growing resistance to his vision, to his brave new world of government-run "communitarian" health care in which politicians and bureaucrats control one-sixth of the economy and 100% of our bodies. He doesn't quite understand how it all came apart on him, but he does know who started the unraveling: Sarah Palin.

Where does she get off attacking him? Sarah Palin, it seems forever Sarah Palin. And he wonders, as have so many others, what it takes to put a stake through her heart? People should listen to him, not Sarah Palin. He is the philosopher king of Democrat health care. And he went to Harvard, you know.

One day he was vacationing in the Italian Alps, a top-level government bureaucrat and Democrat insider enjoying the fruits of his labors on behalf of the common good. Government health care was cruising and Zeke was the guy Time magazine predicted will build the most "equitable and ethical" health care system north of Cuba. Marty Peretz, his friend and publisher of The New Republic, described him as quintessential Harvard, "very impressive" and stuffed with "gravitas."

And then he got the call: Sarah Palin had done the unthinkable. She had read the health care bill. Mainstream journalists hadn't read the bill. Congress hadn't read its own bill. But Sarah Palin did. Sarah Palin! He has a medical degree and doctorate in political philosophy from Harvard. The only Harvard she's knows is the chunk of ice off Prince William Sound, Harvard Glacier.
Then she writes something on Facebook -- Facebook, for Obama's sake! -- and suddenly the president, congress, the media, and everyone who is anyone inside the beltway is scurrying for cover. Palin wrote that she wanted nothing to do with Obama's "death panel," the collection of bureaucrats who Zeke was so proudly putting together to assess the "level of productivity" that would determine individual access to medical care

They went after her, was over. Everyone was talking death panels. Sarah Palin had let people know: if you're old, if you're sick, if you're disabled, they're targeting you. It became Mrs. Mom vs. Dr. Death, the governor vs. the terminator.

She cut through the rhetoric, the academic jargon, and adoring press to the truth: Ezekiel Emanuel and Barack Obama and the Democrat-led Congress are putting in place a health care system that will control the lives -- and deaths -- of citizens to an extent never seen in this republic. Her reaction:"we're saying not just no, but hell no!

And Zeke is upset. A slam-dunk had been transformed into an epic battle and, as an American Thinker commentator put it, ObamaCare turned into a "sick joke." That's not how it's supposed to be -- he went to Harvard, you know.

Ezekiel Emanuel "abhors" what she's done. She read his articles, which "even well-educated people" would have a difficult time understanding. And she's certainly not well educated. She's a graduate of the University of Idaho, where they probably write doctoral dissertations in crayon. And she only has a bachelor's degree -- in communications, for Obama's sake!?

It's as if the waitress at the Harvard Faculty Club had, instead of a check, taken out a baseball bat and cold-cocked him. Or the ball girl at the tennis event sponsored by the Harvard Club of Washington DC had reared back and smacked a Dunlop A-Player right into his groin. This is not supposed to happen -- he went to Harvard, you know.

This is crazy! People are packing town halls in protest. They are listening to Sarah Palin and not Zeke, who has been a fellow at Oxford -- the one in England, not the suburb of Fairbanks. And he has written nine books, almost a dozen chapters in other books, and more than 225 other pieces on bioethics and morality. And certified as a genius by The New York Times, which hired him as a book reviewer for its Sunday newspaper

And yet, this, this... this Facebook writer described his thinking as "downright evil." And demanded that he explain why he's trying to put in place centralized health care that "would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential."

Evil!? Sarah Palin called him evil!? She said "death panels," he didn't. Hey, some lives are worth more to society than others. Therefore, health services cannot be guaranteed for individuals like Trig, Palin's baby with Down Syndrome, who are "irreversibly prevented" from contributing to the public good. There is a subtle difference.

Sarah Palin simply does not understand. No nuance. She did not go to Harvard, nor is she a board member of Princeton University's Center for Human Values, where Zeke provides support for philosopher Peter Singer. Singer is best known for the view that fetuses and many disabled have less of a right to live than, say, fully functioning humans and "adult gorillas and chimpanzees." No, Zeke believes that those who know better, who understand morality, should make decisions for those less able to do so.

Like Sarah Palin. Like Trig. Like your grandma. And this is because he cares. Just ask him: "I hope at the end of the day I can make things better for people, especially vulnerable people." As an original member of the academic "communitarian" movement, he has pledged to establish "just" health care by means that are "nondemocratic or practice discrimination." A just society doesn't simply happen, he explains. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs... so to speak.

So when Sarah Palin says she doesn't want her "baby with Down Syndrome" to stand in front of his medical panels... that shows just how unsophisticated her thinking really is. She has already made the anti-social choice of giving birth to a child with a severe disability, who will never be able to live the "complete life" outlined by Zeke on behalf of the government.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of a health care system that operates in the public good to deny Trig -- or grandma, for that matter -- health services that are better used elsewhere. Sarah Palin, not the government, is to blame. She chose to have Trig. She forced a situation that provides her with, as Zeke puts it, "bleak choices."

And so government, for the sake of the common good, may deny Trig medical care. And may do the same with the elderly, the severely disabled, and others who fall low on the "complete life" value scale. It is the best way, the moral way, the smart way.
And Zeke knows smart -- he went to Harvard, you know.

Stuart H. Schwartz, Ph.D., is a former newspaper and retail executive. He is on the faculty at Liberty University in Virginia.