Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

The shocking Barack Obama debate you haven't seen!!

http://youtube.com/v/zlYMSTP1CxY

Liar and Chief? You bet he is.

The shocking Barack Obama debate you haven't seen!!

Liar and Chief? You bet he is.

Keyes-Obama debate 2 (Death Penalty and Abortion)

http://youtube.com/v/pyOL8TxtexM

President B. Hussein Obama is morally bankrupt, but his sheep are blind.

Keyes-Obama debate 2 (Death Penalty and Abortion)

President B. Hussein Obama is morally bankrupt, but his sheep are blind.

Mona Lisa Project Part 1 - Abortion Clinic Covers Up Rape of 13-year-old Girl

http://youtube.com/v/yr-cJZrBlzE

Planned Parenthood is the tool of evil and B. Hussein Obama fully supports it.

Mona Lisa Project Part 1 - Abortion Clinic Covers Up Rape of 13-year-old Girl

Planned Parenthood is the tool of evil and B. Hussein Obama fully supports it.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

The Voice Of Hate From The California Foothills

I could not pass up the chance to show what pure hatred and rage looks like. This is from The Hive. This poor woman has been so blinded by life's trials. I hope she seeks the help she truly needs.

http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node/12803
One of the reasons I left the Catholic Church
Submitted by jerseygirl on Thu, 2009-02-19 19:36.
is, first, foremost and only- because of blatant hypocrisies.
They teach that God is a forgiving soul who wants you to sit in a box and confess your sins, so that you receive absolution for a shot into a city of clouds. And then they impose the most barbaric forms of punishment regardless of the penance received. For once you've been branded "anti-them," to the Catholic Cheerleaders, one has NO chance in Hell to enter Heaven (tee-hee-hee...).
Let's see... "Hell" isn't just a "conservative," religious zealot telling you that abortion of American fetuses is a moral sin, while supporting those who invade countries that aborts thousands of living children. No, no... if I remember correctly, "Hell," ala Catholicism, has several stages of punishment- limbo and purgatory. If you know the meaning of them then you can't help but question: Is this from the same dude who tells us to confide our sins in Him so that we will be forgiven?
Then there is that whole game of "Pass around the Pedophile Priest" to hide their sins and the shame. So instead of turning in those dressed in holy cloth, which lusts after what is under an altar boys robe, the holier dudes of hierarchy placed the lesser priest of power into churches far, far away hoping nobody ever found out. Uh... so how do you spell hypocrisy?
And if you're like me and love to sink teeth into history, the chapters of our past are inundated with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people, whom over the decades, have been tortured and slaughtered all "in the name of God." K. Next I'm just gonna mention this 'cause I have to, but not because I want to get into this subject; "been there, done that"- but the hypocrisy of those who KILL another human being who help women with abortions, to SAVE a life... Well, nothing is more representative of religious hypocrisy than that today.
So anybody who is gonna play the moral high ground game and express such indignation over the almighty Pope who dare sit with a woman they deem "immoral," better sell the glass house they live in before the storm of stones rains of biblical proportions upon thee.
Oh- F.Y.I. jheaton? If you're going to call someone's intelligence into question, the least you could do is be intelligent enough to spell "intellegence" correctly.
Love ya! The Spewing Shrew... xoxoxox
"Sometimes a revolution is just what is needed to clean-up the system with one, giant enema."- Johnny Depp, "Once Upon a Time in Mexico."

The Voice Of Hate From The California Foothills

I could not pass up the chance to show what pure hatred and rage looks like. This is from The Hive. This poor woman has been so blinded by life's trials. I hope she seeks the help she truly needs.

http://thehive.modbee.com/?q=node/12803
One of the reasons I left the Catholic Church
Submitted by jerseygirl on Thu, 2009-02-19 19:36.
is, first, foremost and only- because of blatant hypocrisies.
They teach that God is a forgiving soul who wants you to sit in a box and confess your sins, so that you receive absolution for a shot into a city of clouds. And then they impose the most barbaric forms of punishment regardless of the penance received. For once you've been branded "anti-them," to the Catholic Cheerleaders, one has NO chance in Hell to enter Heaven (tee-hee-hee...).
Let's see... "Hell" isn't just a "conservative," religious zealot telling you that abortion of American fetuses is a moral sin, while supporting those who invade countries that aborts thousands of living children. No, no... if I remember correctly, "Hell," ala Catholicism, has several stages of punishment- limbo and purgatory. If you know the meaning of them then you can't help but question: Is this from the same dude who tells us to confide our sins in Him so that we will be forgiven?
Then there is that whole game of "Pass around the Pedophile Priest" to hide their sins and the shame. So instead of turning in those dressed in holy cloth, which lusts after what is under an altar boys robe, the holier dudes of hierarchy placed the lesser priest of power into churches far, far away hoping nobody ever found out. Uh... so how do you spell hypocrisy?
And if you're like me and love to sink teeth into history, the chapters of our past are inundated with thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people, whom over the decades, have been tortured and slaughtered all "in the name of God." K. Next I'm just gonna mention this 'cause I have to, but not because I want to get into this subject; "been there, done that"- but the hypocrisy of those who KILL another human being who help women with abortions, to SAVE a life... Well, nothing is more representative of religious hypocrisy than that today.
So anybody who is gonna play the moral high ground game and express such indignation over the almighty Pope who dare sit with a woman they deem "immoral," better sell the glass house they live in before the storm of stones rains of biblical proportions upon thee.
Oh- F.Y.I. jheaton? If you're going to call someone's intelligence into question, the least you could do is be intelligent enough to spell "intellegence" correctly.
Love ya! The Spewing Shrew... xoxoxox
"Sometimes a revolution is just what is needed to clean-up the system with one, giant enema."- Johnny Depp, "Once Upon a Time in Mexico."

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

http://youtube.com/v/fRdLpem-AAs

Socialist/Liberal/ and now Neo Marxist.

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Socialist/Liberal/ and now Neo Marxist.

A Glimpse Of Our Future?

This guy rocks! Thanks to American Conservative.

Copyright © 2009 The American Conservative
United States of Argentina PDF
How inflation turned a rising power into a pauper
By Philip Jenkins

Anyone not alarmed by the state of the U.S. economy is not paying attention. As our Dear Leader begins his term, the theory of very big government has the support of an alarmingly broad political consensus. Despite the obvious dangers—devastating inflation and the ruin of the dollar—the United States seems pledged to a debt-funded spending spree of gargantuan proportions.
In opposing this trend, critics face the problem that the perils to which they point sound very theoretical and abstract. Perhaps Zimbabwe prints its currency in multi-trillion units, but that’s a singularly backward African dictatorship: the situation has nothing to do with us. Yet an example closer to home might be more instructive. Unlike Zimbabwe, this story involves a flourishing Western country with a large middle class that nevertheless managed to spend its way into banana-republic status by means very similar to those now being proposed in Washington.
The country in question is Argentina, and even mentioning the name might initially make any comparison seem tenuous. The United States is a superpower with a huge economy. Argentina is a political and economic joke, a global weakling legendary for endemic economic crises. Between them and us, surely, a great gulf is fixed. Yet Argentina did not always have its present meager status, nor did its poverty result from some inherent Latin American affinity for crisis and corruption. A century ago, Argentina was one of the world’s emerging powers, seemingly destined to outpace all but the greatest imperial states. Today it is … Argentina. A national decline on that scale did not just happen: it was the result of decades of struggle and systematic endeavor, led by the nation’s elite. As the nation’s greatest writer, Jorge Luis Borges, once remarked, only generations of statesmanship could have prevented Argentina from becoming a world power.
For Americans, the Argentine experience offers multiple warnings, not just about how dreadfully things can go wrong but how a nation can reach a point of no return. Not only did Argentina squander its many blessings, it created a situation from which the society could never recover. Argentines still suffer from the blunders and hubris of their grandparents without any serious likelihood that even their most strenuous efforts will make a difference. A nation can get into such a situation easily enough, but getting out is a different matter. A corrupted economy can’t be cured without being wiped out and started over.
It is hard, looking at the basket case Argentina has become, to imagine what an economic powerhouse the country was before World War II. From the 1880s, Argentina was, alongside the U.S. itself, a prime destination for European migrants. Buenos Aires was one of the world’s largest metropolitan areas, in a select club that included London, Paris, Berlin, and New York City. Argentina benefited mightily from foreign investment, which it used wisely to create a strong infrastructure and an excellent system of free mass education. It had the largest and most prosperous middle class in Latin America. When World War I began, Argentina was the world’s tenth wealthiest nation.
Right up to the 1940s, American and European economists struggled to explain the glaring contrast between booming Argentina and slothful Australia. As many studies pointed out, both countries had begun at a roughly similar point, as agricultural producers dependent on fickle world markets. Yet Australia remained stuck in colonial status while Argentina made the great leap forward to the status of an advanced nation with an expanding industrial base and sophisticated commerce.
So what happened? Certainly the country was hit hard by the depression of the 1930s, but so were other advanced nations that ultimately recovered, and Argentina profited from intense wartime demand for primary products.
The country was killed by political decisions, and the primary culprit was Juan Perón. He dominated political life through the 1940s and ruled officially as president from 1946 to 1955, returning briefly in the 1970s. Although he did not begin the process, he completed the transformation of Argentine government so that the state became both an object of plunder and an instrument for plunder.
Perón came from a fascist and corporatist mindset, which became more aggressively populist under the influence of his second wife Eva. They aimed their rhetoric against the nation’s rich, a designation that was swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated. To equalize the supposed struggle between the rich and the dispossessed, the Peróns exalted the liberating role of the state. The bureaucracy swelled alarmingly as nationalization brought key sectors of the economy under official control. Government bought loyalty through a massive program of social spending while fostering the growth of labor unions, which became intimate allies of the governing party. Argentina came to be the most unionized nation in Latin America. Perón also ended any pretense of the independence of the judiciary, purging and intimidating judges about whom he had any doubts and replacing them with minions.
The Peronist model—a New Deal on steroids—evolved into an effective clientelism, in which party overlords and labor bosses ruled through a mixture of corruption and violence. Clientelism, in effect, means the annexation of state resources for the benefit of political parties and private networks. Right now, both the word and the concept are not terribly familiar to Americans, but this is one Latin American export that they may soon need to get used to.
As high taxes and economic mismanagement took their toll, the Peróns blamed the disasters on class enemies at home and imperialism abroad, but the regime could not survive the loss of the venerated Eva. After attempting briefly to swing back to the center, Juan Perón was overthrown and driven into Spanish exile. Later governments tried varying strategies to reclaim Argentina’s lost splendors and some enjoyed success, but Perón’s curse endured. Even when his party was driven underground, its traditions remained: demagogic populism, a perception of the state as a device for enriching supporters and punishing foes, and a contempt for economic realities. Utopian mass movements inspired by Peronist ideas and charisma segued easily into the far-left upsurge of the 1960s, when Argentina gave birth to some of the world’s most dangerous terrorist and guerrilla movements. By 1976, the military intervened to stave off the imminent collapse of the state and launched the notorious Dirty War that killed thousands.
Since 1976, Argentine economic policies have lurched from catastrophe to catastrophe. The military junta borrowed enormously with no serious thought about consequences, and the structures of Argentine society made it impossible to tell how funds were being invested. Foreign debt exploded, the deficit boomed, and inflation approached 100 percent a year. Economic meltdown had disastrous political consequences. By 1982, like many other dictatorships through history, the Argentine junta tried to solve its domestic problems by turning to foreign military adventures. And like other regimes, they found that their control over military affairs was about as weak as their command of the economy. Military defeat in the Falkland Islands destroyed the junta. By 1983, a civilian president was in power once more. But nothing could stop the nosedive. Inflation reached 672 percent by 1985 and 3,080 percent by 1989. The disaster provoked capital flight and the collapse of investor confidence, not to mention the annihilation of middle-class savings. In the words on one observer, José Ignacio García Hamilton, the nation became “an international beggar with the highest per capita debt in the world.”
Another civilian president, Carlos Menem, took office in 1989, and despite his Peronist loyalties he initially tried to restore sanity through a program of privatization and deregulation. But events soon proved that Menem was only following a familiar pattern whereby a new regime would speak the language of reform and moderation for a couple of years before facing a showdown with the underlying realities of Argentine society. Menem could not overcome the overwhelming inertia within the country, the juggernaut pressures toward the growth of the state, to bureaucratization and regulation, and the destruction of private initiative and free enterprise. Between 1991 and 1999, Argentine public debt burgeoned from 34 percent of GDP to 52 percent. During the same decade, government public debt more than doubled as a percentage of GDP. These burdens stifled private investment so that productive sectors of the economy languished.
Economic disaster led inevitably to a collapse of social confidence and the evaporation of loyalty to the state. The more heavily the country was taxed and regulated, the more Argentines took their transactions off the books, creating a black economy on par with that of the old Soviet Union. In terms of paying their taxes, Argentines are about as faithful as the Italians to whom most have blood ties. Tax evasion became a national sport, second only to soccer in the Argentine consciousness, and provided another stumbling block to fiscal integrity. The collapse of respect for authority also extended to the law: courts are presumed to operate according to bribes and political pressure.
Systematic corruption has had horrifying implications for national security. After all, once you establish the idea that the state is for sale, there is no reason not to offer its services to foreign buyers. One spectacular example of such outsourcing occurred in 1994, when Islamist terrorists blew up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 85. The investigation of the massacre was thoroughly bungled, reportedly because the Iranian government paid Menem $10 million. It is trivial to list the many other allegations of corruption and embezzlement surrounding Menem: what else is politics for, if not to enrich yourself and your clients?
In 2001-02, Argentine fortunes reached depths hitherto unplumbed. A debt-fueled crisis provoked a run on the currency, leading the government to freeze virtually all private bank accounts for 12 months. At the end of 2001, the country defaulted on its foreign debt of $142 billion, the largest such failure in history. With the economy in ruins, almost 60 percent of Argentines were living below the poverty line. Street violence became so intense that the president was forced to flee his palace by helicopter.
Since 2002, yet another new government has presided over an illusory economic boom before being manhandled by the ugly ghosts of Juan and Evita. Those specters were on hand to whisper their excellent advice to a new generation: if you face a crisis caused by excessive government spending, borrowing, and regulation, what else do you do except push even harder to spend, borrow, and regulate? Over the past two years, new taxes and price freezes have again crippled the economy, bringing power blackouts and forced cuts in production. Public debt stands at 56 percent of GDP, and inflation runs 20 percent. Last October, the government seized $29 billion in private pension funds, hammering the final nail in the coffin of the old middle classes. Judging by credit default swap spreads on government debt, the smart money is now betting heavily on another official default before mid-year. The Argentine economy may not actually be dead yet, but it has plenty of ill-wishers trying hard to finish it off.
We all know that deficits drive inflation, which can destroy a society. Less obvious is the political dimension of such a national suicide. Debts and deficits must be understood in the context of the populism that commonly entices governments to abandon economic restraint. No less political are the probable consequences of such a course: authoritarianism, public violence, and militarism.
The road to economic hell is paved with excellent intentions—a desire to save troubled industries, relieve poverty, and bolster communities that support the present government. But the higher the spending and the deeper the deficits, the worse the effects on productive enterprise and the heavier the penalty placed on thrift and enterprise. As matters deteriorate, governments have a natural tendency to divert blame onto some unpopular group, which comes to be labeled in terms of class, income, or race. With society so polarized, the party in power can dismiss any criticism as the selfish whining of the privileged and concentrate on the serious business of diverting state resources to its own followers.
Quite rapidly, “progressive” economic reforms subvert and then destroy savings and property, eliminating any effective opposition to the regime. Soon, too—if the Perón precedent is anything to go by—the regime organizes its long march through the organs of power, conquering the courts, the bureaucracy, the schools, and the media. Hyper-deficits bring hyperinflation, and only for the briefest moment can they coexist with any kind of democratic order.
Could it happen here? The U.S. certainly has very different political traditions from Argentina and more barriers to a populist-driven rape of the economy. On the other hand, events in some regions would make Juan Perón smile wistfully. California runs on particularly high taxes, uncontrollable deficits, and overregulation with a vastly swollen bureaucracy while the hegemonic power of organized labor prevents any reform. Thankfully, the state has no power to devalue its currency, still less to freeze bank accounts or seize pension funds, and businesses can still relocate elsewhere. But in its social values and progressive assumptions, California is close to the Democratic mainstream, which now intends to impose its ideas on the nation as a whole. And at over 60 percent of GDP, U.S. public debt is already higher than Argentina’s.
When honest money perishes, the society goes with it. We can’t say we weren’t warned. __________________________________________
Philip Jenkins is the author of The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia—and How It Died.

A Glimpse Of Our Future?

This guy rocks! Thanks to American Conservative.

Copyright © 2009 The American Conservative
United States of Argentina PDF
How inflation turned a rising power into a pauper
By Philip Jenkins

Anyone not alarmed by the state of the U.S. economy is not paying attention. As our Dear Leader begins his term, the theory of very big government has the support of an alarmingly broad political consensus. Despite the obvious dangers—devastating inflation and the ruin of the dollar—the United States seems pledged to a debt-funded spending spree of gargantuan proportions.
In opposing this trend, critics face the problem that the perils to which they point sound very theoretical and abstract. Perhaps Zimbabwe prints its currency in multi-trillion units, but that’s a singularly backward African dictatorship: the situation has nothing to do with us. Yet an example closer to home might be more instructive. Unlike Zimbabwe, this story involves a flourishing Western country with a large middle class that nevertheless managed to spend its way into banana-republic status by means very similar to those now being proposed in Washington.
The country in question is Argentina, and even mentioning the name might initially make any comparison seem tenuous. The United States is a superpower with a huge economy. Argentina is a political and economic joke, a global weakling legendary for endemic economic crises. Between them and us, surely, a great gulf is fixed. Yet Argentina did not always have its present meager status, nor did its poverty result from some inherent Latin American affinity for crisis and corruption. A century ago, Argentina was one of the world’s emerging powers, seemingly destined to outpace all but the greatest imperial states. Today it is … Argentina. A national decline on that scale did not just happen: it was the result of decades of struggle and systematic endeavor, led by the nation’s elite. As the nation’s greatest writer, Jorge Luis Borges, once remarked, only generations of statesmanship could have prevented Argentina from becoming a world power.
For Americans, the Argentine experience offers multiple warnings, not just about how dreadfully things can go wrong but how a nation can reach a point of no return. Not only did Argentina squander its many blessings, it created a situation from which the society could never recover. Argentines still suffer from the blunders and hubris of their grandparents without any serious likelihood that even their most strenuous efforts will make a difference. A nation can get into such a situation easily enough, but getting out is a different matter. A corrupted economy can’t be cured without being wiped out and started over.
It is hard, looking at the basket case Argentina has become, to imagine what an economic powerhouse the country was before World War II. From the 1880s, Argentina was, alongside the U.S. itself, a prime destination for European migrants. Buenos Aires was one of the world’s largest metropolitan areas, in a select club that included London, Paris, Berlin, and New York City. Argentina benefited mightily from foreign investment, which it used wisely to create a strong infrastructure and an excellent system of free mass education. It had the largest and most prosperous middle class in Latin America. When World War I began, Argentina was the world’s tenth wealthiest nation.
Right up to the 1940s, American and European economists struggled to explain the glaring contrast between booming Argentina and slothful Australia. As many studies pointed out, both countries had begun at a roughly similar point, as agricultural producers dependent on fickle world markets. Yet Australia remained stuck in colonial status while Argentina made the great leap forward to the status of an advanced nation with an expanding industrial base and sophisticated commerce.
So what happened? Certainly the country was hit hard by the depression of the 1930s, but so were other advanced nations that ultimately recovered, and Argentina profited from intense wartime demand for primary products.
The country was killed by political decisions, and the primary culprit was Juan Perón. He dominated political life through the 1940s and ruled officially as president from 1946 to 1955, returning briefly in the 1970s. Although he did not begin the process, he completed the transformation of Argentine government so that the state became both an object of plunder and an instrument for plunder.
Perón came from a fascist and corporatist mindset, which became more aggressively populist under the influence of his second wife Eva. They aimed their rhetoric against the nation’s rich, a designation that was swiftly expanded to cover most of the propertied middle classes, who became an enemy to be defeated and humiliated. To equalize the supposed struggle between the rich and the dispossessed, the Peróns exalted the liberating role of the state. The bureaucracy swelled alarmingly as nationalization brought key sectors of the economy under official control. Government bought loyalty through a massive program of social spending while fostering the growth of labor unions, which became intimate allies of the governing party. Argentina came to be the most unionized nation in Latin America. Perón also ended any pretense of the independence of the judiciary, purging and intimidating judges about whom he had any doubts and replacing them with minions.
The Peronist model—a New Deal on steroids—evolved into an effective clientelism, in which party overlords and labor bosses ruled through a mixture of corruption and violence. Clientelism, in effect, means the annexation of state resources for the benefit of political parties and private networks. Right now, both the word and the concept are not terribly familiar to Americans, but this is one Latin American export that they may soon need to get used to.
As high taxes and economic mismanagement took their toll, the Peróns blamed the disasters on class enemies at home and imperialism abroad, but the regime could not survive the loss of the venerated Eva. After attempting briefly to swing back to the center, Juan Perón was overthrown and driven into Spanish exile. Later governments tried varying strategies to reclaim Argentina’s lost splendors and some enjoyed success, but Perón’s curse endured. Even when his party was driven underground, its traditions remained: demagogic populism, a perception of the state as a device for enriching supporters and punishing foes, and a contempt for economic realities. Utopian mass movements inspired by Peronist ideas and charisma segued easily into the far-left upsurge of the 1960s, when Argentina gave birth to some of the world’s most dangerous terrorist and guerrilla movements. By 1976, the military intervened to stave off the imminent collapse of the state and launched the notorious Dirty War that killed thousands.
Since 1976, Argentine economic policies have lurched from catastrophe to catastrophe. The military junta borrowed enormously with no serious thought about consequences, and the structures of Argentine society made it impossible to tell how funds were being invested. Foreign debt exploded, the deficit boomed, and inflation approached 100 percent a year. Economic meltdown had disastrous political consequences. By 1982, like many other dictatorships through history, the Argentine junta tried to solve its domestic problems by turning to foreign military adventures. And like other regimes, they found that their control over military affairs was about as weak as their command of the economy. Military defeat in the Falkland Islands destroyed the junta. By 1983, a civilian president was in power once more. But nothing could stop the nosedive. Inflation reached 672 percent by 1985 and 3,080 percent by 1989. The disaster provoked capital flight and the collapse of investor confidence, not to mention the annihilation of middle-class savings. In the words on one observer, José Ignacio García Hamilton, the nation became “an international beggar with the highest per capita debt in the world.”
Another civilian president, Carlos Menem, took office in 1989, and despite his Peronist loyalties he initially tried to restore sanity through a program of privatization and deregulation. But events soon proved that Menem was only following a familiar pattern whereby a new regime would speak the language of reform and moderation for a couple of years before facing a showdown with the underlying realities of Argentine society. Menem could not overcome the overwhelming inertia within the country, the juggernaut pressures toward the growth of the state, to bureaucratization and regulation, and the destruction of private initiative and free enterprise. Between 1991 and 1999, Argentine public debt burgeoned from 34 percent of GDP to 52 percent. During the same decade, government public debt more than doubled as a percentage of GDP. These burdens stifled private investment so that productive sectors of the economy languished.
Economic disaster led inevitably to a collapse of social confidence and the evaporation of loyalty to the state. The more heavily the country was taxed and regulated, the more Argentines took their transactions off the books, creating a black economy on par with that of the old Soviet Union. In terms of paying their taxes, Argentines are about as faithful as the Italians to whom most have blood ties. Tax evasion became a national sport, second only to soccer in the Argentine consciousness, and provided another stumbling block to fiscal integrity. The collapse of respect for authority also extended to the law: courts are presumed to operate according to bribes and political pressure.
Systematic corruption has had horrifying implications for national security. After all, once you establish the idea that the state is for sale, there is no reason not to offer its services to foreign buyers. One spectacular example of such outsourcing occurred in 1994, when Islamist terrorists blew up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 85. The investigation of the massacre was thoroughly bungled, reportedly because the Iranian government paid Menem $10 million. It is trivial to list the many other allegations of corruption and embezzlement surrounding Menem: what else is politics for, if not to enrich yourself and your clients?
In 2001-02, Argentine fortunes reached depths hitherto unplumbed. A debt-fueled crisis provoked a run on the currency, leading the government to freeze virtually all private bank accounts for 12 months. At the end of 2001, the country defaulted on its foreign debt of $142 billion, the largest such failure in history. With the economy in ruins, almost 60 percent of Argentines were living below the poverty line. Street violence became so intense that the president was forced to flee his palace by helicopter.
Since 2002, yet another new government has presided over an illusory economic boom before being manhandled by the ugly ghosts of Juan and Evita. Those specters were on hand to whisper their excellent advice to a new generation: if you face a crisis caused by excessive government spending, borrowing, and regulation, what else do you do except push even harder to spend, borrow, and regulate? Over the past two years, new taxes and price freezes have again crippled the economy, bringing power blackouts and forced cuts in production. Public debt stands at 56 percent of GDP, and inflation runs 20 percent. Last October, the government seized $29 billion in private pension funds, hammering the final nail in the coffin of the old middle classes. Judging by credit default swap spreads on government debt, the smart money is now betting heavily on another official default before mid-year. The Argentine economy may not actually be dead yet, but it has plenty of ill-wishers trying hard to finish it off.
We all know that deficits drive inflation, which can destroy a society. Less obvious is the political dimension of such a national suicide. Debts and deficits must be understood in the context of the populism that commonly entices governments to abandon economic restraint. No less political are the probable consequences of such a course: authoritarianism, public violence, and militarism.
The road to economic hell is paved with excellent intentions—a desire to save troubled industries, relieve poverty, and bolster communities that support the present government. But the higher the spending and the deeper the deficits, the worse the effects on productive enterprise and the heavier the penalty placed on thrift and enterprise. As matters deteriorate, governments have a natural tendency to divert blame onto some unpopular group, which comes to be labeled in terms of class, income, or race. With society so polarized, the party in power can dismiss any criticism as the selfish whining of the privileged and concentrate on the serious business of diverting state resources to its own followers.
Quite rapidly, “progressive” economic reforms subvert and then destroy savings and property, eliminating any effective opposition to the regime. Soon, too—if the Perón precedent is anything to go by—the regime organizes its long march through the organs of power, conquering the courts, the bureaucracy, the schools, and the media. Hyper-deficits bring hyperinflation, and only for the briefest moment can they coexist with any kind of democratic order.
Could it happen here? The U.S. certainly has very different political traditions from Argentina and more barriers to a populist-driven rape of the economy. On the other hand, events in some regions would make Juan Perón smile wistfully. California runs on particularly high taxes, uncontrollable deficits, and overregulation with a vastly swollen bureaucracy while the hegemonic power of organized labor prevents any reform. Thankfully, the state has no power to devalue its currency, still less to freeze bank accounts or seize pension funds, and businesses can still relocate elsewhere. But in its social values and progressive assumptions, California is close to the Democratic mainstream, which now intends to impose its ideas on the nation as a whole. And at over 60 percent of GDP, U.S. public debt is already higher than Argentina’s.
When honest money perishes, the society goes with it. We can’t say we weren’t warned. __________________________________________
Philip Jenkins is the author of The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia—and How It Died.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

The Barry Principle

By way of The American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/murphys_law_the_peter_principl.html
What happens when everything that can go wrong in a person's character formation does go wrong, and that person continues to be promoted to his level of incompetence?
President Barack Obama happens.
I'm well into my sixth decade of life and have yet to see a more perfect collision of Murphy's Law with the Peter Principle in a single individual.
Proper character development is the overriding aim of good parents in raising their children. Mature parents, especially those Judeo/Christian parents with faith, believe it sinful to raise a child without strong self-constraint, a well-formed conscience, ingrained humility and an ironclad respect for the rights of others. Children raised thusly become self-supporting adults, honest in their dealings with others and prone to be contributing members of the society at large.
The world is purely chock full of bad parents, however. Plum chock full.
Barack Obama was conceived out of wedlock to an eighteen year-old girl, who was herself the product of non-religious, rebellious parents, intent on unraveling the fabric of WASP America. Stanley Ann Dunham met Barack Obama Sr., an already-married African Muslim man, in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii in her very first year there. According to President Obama's memoir, his biological father married his mother about three months into the pregnancy, even though he already had a wife and children on his home continent. Hence, very shortly, the father abandoned the new mother and her child to seek his own fortune and yet another wife-to-be at Harvard.
Bigamists are not known for fidelity, are they?
The end result of this convoluted beginning of the man who would become President was that his maternal grandparents became his primary caregivers. With the very best of intentions, I'm sure, these white grandparents doted, scraped and groveled to make the little abandoned child's life as picture-perfect as it could possibly be under the awful circumstances of parental abandonment. This is a recipe for disaster in the area of character development.
Believing that the child, Barry, needed lots of attention and as few hard knocks as possible, these grandparents proceeded to spoil the ever-living daylights out of the precocious, charismatic, bi-racial child of their only daughter. Through his grandmother's connections, Barry got a scholarship to the elite Panahou Academy and became one of only five black children in the posh school, where teachers, too, bent over backwards not to offend, not to discipline. For added umph to this already-disastrous formula, Barry's grandfather made sure the child got lots of father-figure mentoring from a self-proclaimed pedophile and avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis.
As a young teenager, surrounded by opportunities for drug abuse and tomfoolery, Barry bragged that he had a deal with his doting grandparents which entailed his being able to do whatever he wanted while they looked the other way and pretended not to notice.
After all, they surely reasoned, this pitiful little boy had enough pain in his life.
Paying consequences for delinquent behavior would have been entirely too much. Too much. Oh, just too much to bear.
As President Obama's school transcripts (all of them, from start to finish!) remain among his stack of unreleased documents, we have no way of knowing how our current President did in school. However, we do know that he was doing drugs, that he was not involved in any demanding athletic program and that he was not otherwise making a big name for himself on campus. We know also that Obama's first gig on the mainland was at Occidental College, which is a fine school I am sure, but far from Ivy League. I'm fairly certain that those grades at Panahou were nothing to brag about, and there is no evidence whatsoever that there was anything else to brag about either.
At Occidental, however, young Barry Obama discovered the one gift that would eventually make up for all other deficiencies: his oratorical talent. Coupled with natural charisma and an Eddie-Haskell styled ability to guile, Barry Obama had arrived.
This was the story hailed by Axelrod as bedrock, middle-class, Kansan upbringing.
And 52% of the American electorate bought it faster than you can say prime-Florida-swampland-with-a-view-sold-to-dumber-than-dumb-Yankees.
Barry Obama made his entrance into mainland politics by frequenting all the Occidental socialist clubs, rallies and protests, and the first time he took to a podium, his rhetorical talent unveiled itself. Then, it was off to Columbia and a shadow existence, which eventually culminated in President Barack Obama, the first African-American President and the first man to ever assume the highest office in the land without one whit of experience other than running for office and beguiling a public begging to be beguiled.
Along the always-sunny yellow brick road to the White House, Barry was hailed as brilliant-beyond-brilliant, the veritable savior of his people and in the words of his now Vice President, a "clean, articulate and bright" black man. Nowhere, at any time during Barack Obama's near-miraculous rise to power, did he come into contact with anyone that would have demanded a character test.
The characters in this President's closet are too strange for fiction -- Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, the New Party, Billy Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan, Mayor Daly, Rod Blagojevich, George Soros, assorted tax cheats and pay-to-play schemers of every variety. When any sentient person adds it up, he gets a man without principle, someone so enabled in his avoidance of reality about himself that one can only call it Murphy's Law applied to character development.
Every single thing that could go wrong has indeed gone wrong.
Enter a mainstream media so swept off its feet with tingles and its own utter lack of religiosity -- a group purely primed for false-savior seeking -- and what one could call the Murphy's Law of picking a President is perfectly, positively, poignantly complete.
From Stage right and Stage left, and from below and above, we see the Peter Principle in all its inglorious dimensions set to wreak havoc upon this entire Country.
In only three weeks' time, this President has signaled to every terrorist on the planet that we are a sorry, groveling, ashamed Nation ready to come to the diplomatic confessional. He is closing Gitmo within one year, has suspended trials there, and dismissed the charges against the U.S.S. Cole plotter. American penance is coming and it's coming fast and feebly on its knees.
President Obama has just put our money where his mouth is and is using $20.3 million to bring in Palestinian refugees from Gaza, the Hamas-controlled region where folks prefer bomb-making to bread-baking. Instead of helping Israel defeat them, this President brings them here.
As if we did not have enough home-grown terrorists.
The new politics of "hope & change" is looking like a Hollywood remake of "Larger-than-life Dopes and Same-ole-same-ole Corruptocrats" with tax cheats flanking the new Cabinet, an Attorney General who never saw a pardon he didn't like or a terrorist he couldn't love, a porn-protection guru as his Deputy, and a man without an ounce of intelligence knowledge or experience now the wartime head of the CIA. Add to this mess a Secretary of State whose husband owes far more than any other American alive to foreigners. The new Secretary of Education was in charge of Chicago schools, where more than 500 verified acts of child battering by teachers went unpunished and teacher unions trumped student rights. This Cabinet is shaping up to be worse than Bill Clinton's and Jimmy Carter's combined, while President Obama throws cocktail parties with $100/pound steak.
President Obama's definition of bipartisanship: "I won."
President Obama's definition of leadership: "Nancy can handle the details."
Our new President had the gall to pronounce the so-called economic stimulus bill absolutely free of "earmarks" and "make-do work," while spinning his prosaic campaign rhetoric before an international audience in a prime-time "press conference." This bill has close to a trillion-dollar price tag, but according to the Congressional Budget Office will do worse to our overall economy than no government action whatsoever. So, if this bill has no pork or earmarks in it, then it is pure socialist folderol run amok before it even gets implemented - in the face of the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."
The Peter Principle has reached its pinnacle in President Barack Obama.
If one wants a hawks-eye view into the minds of Obama voters, all one need do is read this piece published by the New York Times last week, detailing the fantasies, dreams and drooling-envy delusions of his followers. Their celebrity is now their President.
The perfect collision of Murphy's Law with the Peter Principle has arrived to explode in our faces.
In the words of Britain's most eloquent commentator, "America, what have you done?"
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com.

The Barry Principle

By way of The American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/murphys_law_the_peter_principl.html
What happens when everything that can go wrong in a person's character formation does go wrong, and that person continues to be promoted to his level of incompetence?
President Barack Obama happens.
I'm well into my sixth decade of life and have yet to see a more perfect collision of Murphy's Law with the Peter Principle in a single individual.
Proper character development is the overriding aim of good parents in raising their children. Mature parents, especially those Judeo/Christian parents with faith, believe it sinful to raise a child without strong self-constraint, a well-formed conscience, ingrained humility and an ironclad respect for the rights of others. Children raised thusly become self-supporting adults, honest in their dealings with others and prone to be contributing members of the society at large.
The world is purely chock full of bad parents, however. Plum chock full.
Barack Obama was conceived out of wedlock to an eighteen year-old girl, who was herself the product of non-religious, rebellious parents, intent on unraveling the fabric of WASP America. Stanley Ann Dunham met Barack Obama Sr., an already-married African Muslim man, in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii in her very first year there. According to President Obama's memoir, his biological father married his mother about three months into the pregnancy, even though he already had a wife and children on his home continent. Hence, very shortly, the father abandoned the new mother and her child to seek his own fortune and yet another wife-to-be at Harvard.
Bigamists are not known for fidelity, are they?
The end result of this convoluted beginning of the man who would become President was that his maternal grandparents became his primary caregivers. With the very best of intentions, I'm sure, these white grandparents doted, scraped and groveled to make the little abandoned child's life as picture-perfect as it could possibly be under the awful circumstances of parental abandonment. This is a recipe for disaster in the area of character development.
Believing that the child, Barry, needed lots of attention and as few hard knocks as possible, these grandparents proceeded to spoil the ever-living daylights out of the precocious, charismatic, bi-racial child of their only daughter. Through his grandmother's connections, Barry got a scholarship to the elite Panahou Academy and became one of only five black children in the posh school, where teachers, too, bent over backwards not to offend, not to discipline. For added umph to this already-disastrous formula, Barry's grandfather made sure the child got lots of father-figure mentoring from a self-proclaimed pedophile and avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis.
As a young teenager, surrounded by opportunities for drug abuse and tomfoolery, Barry bragged that he had a deal with his doting grandparents which entailed his being able to do whatever he wanted while they looked the other way and pretended not to notice.
After all, they surely reasoned, this pitiful little boy had enough pain in his life.
Paying consequences for delinquent behavior would have been entirely too much. Too much. Oh, just too much to bear.
As President Obama's school transcripts (all of them, from start to finish!) remain among his stack of unreleased documents, we have no way of knowing how our current President did in school. However, we do know that he was doing drugs, that he was not involved in any demanding athletic program and that he was not otherwise making a big name for himself on campus. We know also that Obama's first gig on the mainland was at Occidental College, which is a fine school I am sure, but far from Ivy League. I'm fairly certain that those grades at Panahou were nothing to brag about, and there is no evidence whatsoever that there was anything else to brag about either.
At Occidental, however, young Barry Obama discovered the one gift that would eventually make up for all other deficiencies: his oratorical talent. Coupled with natural charisma and an Eddie-Haskell styled ability to guile, Barry Obama had arrived.
This was the story hailed by Axelrod as bedrock, middle-class, Kansan upbringing.
And 52% of the American electorate bought it faster than you can say prime-Florida-swampland-with-a-view-sold-to-dumber-than-dumb-Yankees.
Barry Obama made his entrance into mainland politics by frequenting all the Occidental socialist clubs, rallies and protests, and the first time he took to a podium, his rhetorical talent unveiled itself. Then, it was off to Columbia and a shadow existence, which eventually culminated in President Barack Obama, the first African-American President and the first man to ever assume the highest office in the land without one whit of experience other than running for office and beguiling a public begging to be beguiled.
Along the always-sunny yellow brick road to the White House, Barry was hailed as brilliant-beyond-brilliant, the veritable savior of his people and in the words of his now Vice President, a "clean, articulate and bright" black man. Nowhere, at any time during Barack Obama's near-miraculous rise to power, did he come into contact with anyone that would have demanded a character test.
The characters in this President's closet are too strange for fiction -- Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, the New Party, Billy Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan, Mayor Daly, Rod Blagojevich, George Soros, assorted tax cheats and pay-to-play schemers of every variety. When any sentient person adds it up, he gets a man without principle, someone so enabled in his avoidance of reality about himself that one can only call it Murphy's Law applied to character development.
Every single thing that could go wrong has indeed gone wrong.
Enter a mainstream media so swept off its feet with tingles and its own utter lack of religiosity -- a group purely primed for false-savior seeking -- and what one could call the Murphy's Law of picking a President is perfectly, positively, poignantly complete.
From Stage right and Stage left, and from below and above, we see the Peter Principle in all its inglorious dimensions set to wreak havoc upon this entire Country.
In only three weeks' time, this President has signaled to every terrorist on the planet that we are a sorry, groveling, ashamed Nation ready to come to the diplomatic confessional. He is closing Gitmo within one year, has suspended trials there, and dismissed the charges against the U.S.S. Cole plotter. American penance is coming and it's coming fast and feebly on its knees.
President Obama has just put our money where his mouth is and is using $20.3 million to bring in Palestinian refugees from Gaza, the Hamas-controlled region where folks prefer bomb-making to bread-baking. Instead of helping Israel defeat them, this President brings them here.
As if we did not have enough home-grown terrorists.
The new politics of "hope & change" is looking like a Hollywood remake of "Larger-than-life Dopes and Same-ole-same-ole Corruptocrats" with tax cheats flanking the new Cabinet, an Attorney General who never saw a pardon he didn't like or a terrorist he couldn't love, a porn-protection guru as his Deputy, and a man without an ounce of intelligence knowledge or experience now the wartime head of the CIA. Add to this mess a Secretary of State whose husband owes far more than any other American alive to foreigners. The new Secretary of Education was in charge of Chicago schools, where more than 500 verified acts of child battering by teachers went unpunished and teacher unions trumped student rights. This Cabinet is shaping up to be worse than Bill Clinton's and Jimmy Carter's combined, while President Obama throws cocktail parties with $100/pound steak.
President Obama's definition of bipartisanship: "I won."
President Obama's definition of leadership: "Nancy can handle the details."
Our new President had the gall to pronounce the so-called economic stimulus bill absolutely free of "earmarks" and "make-do work," while spinning his prosaic campaign rhetoric before an international audience in a prime-time "press conference." This bill has close to a trillion-dollar price tag, but according to the Congressional Budget Office will do worse to our overall economy than no government action whatsoever. So, if this bill has no pork or earmarks in it, then it is pure socialist folderol run amok before it even gets implemented - in the face of the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."
The Peter Principle has reached its pinnacle in President Barack Obama.
If one wants a hawks-eye view into the minds of Obama voters, all one need do is read this piece published by the New York Times last week, detailing the fantasies, dreams and drooling-envy delusions of his followers. Their celebrity is now their President.
The perfect collision of Murphy's Law with the Peter Principle has arrived to explode in our faces.
In the words of Britain's most eloquent commentator, "America, what have you done?"
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at kyleanneshiver@gmail.com.

They Have Not A Clue....As Do Any Of The Neo Marxist

Thanks American Thinker!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/scary_thought_for_the_day_obam.html

February 11, 2009
Scary thought for the day: Obama and Geithner don't have a clueTreasury Secretary Geithner had a moment in the sun yesterday after a big build up from his boss at his Monday night press conference.Obama, you recall, didn't want to "steal any thunder" from his Treasury Secretary about the Bank Bail Out II. Turns out, neither Obama or Geithner apparently have a clue how to wipe the trillions of dollars in bad assets from the US Banking system. In fact, when briefing lawmakers, Geithner was nearly laughed out of the room:
Administration officials were greeted with sarcasm and laughter Monday night when they briefed lawmakers and congressional staff on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's new financial-sector bailout project, according to people who were in the room.The laughter was at its height when Obama officials explained that the White House planned to guarantee a wide swath of toxic assets -- which they referred to as "legacy assets" -- but wouldn't be asking Congress for money. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a bailout opponent in the fall, asked the officials to give Congress the total dollar figure for which they were on the hook. The officials said that they couldn't provide a number, a response met by chuckling that was bipartisan, but tilted toward the GOP side. By guaranteeing the assets, Geithner hopes he can persuade the private sector to purchase a portion of them.Earlier, Geithner laid out the "plan" in a speech. What horrified experts was that all Geithner could come up with were generalities with a promise to fill in the details "at a later date."No one knows how much it will cost. No one knows how it will work. And no one knows if Obama and Geithner aren't just making things up as they go along, stalling for time until they can come up with ideas on how to solve the crisis.Stocks responded to the overwhelming negative reaction by experts and tanked 4.6%. The consensus is that they either don't know what they're doing or they just don't have a clue about how to recapitalize the banks. There are enormous fears that the US banking system is tottering, on the edge of disaster. Some experts believe that the net worth of US banks is less than zero. And until these toxic assets are bought by someone - private investors or the government - no one knows how bad the problem really is. And until someone does, the banks are going to continue to be reluctant to lend money.

They Have Not A Clue....As Do Any Of The Neo Marxist

Thanks American Thinker!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/scary_thought_for_the_day_obam.html

February 11, 2009
Scary thought for the day: Obama and Geithner don't have a clueTreasury Secretary Geithner had a moment in the sun yesterday after a big build up from his boss at his Monday night press conference.Obama, you recall, didn't want to "steal any thunder" from his Treasury Secretary about the Bank Bail Out II. Turns out, neither Obama or Geithner apparently have a clue how to wipe the trillions of dollars in bad assets from the US Banking system. In fact, when briefing lawmakers, Geithner was nearly laughed out of the room:
Administration officials were greeted with sarcasm and laughter Monday night when they briefed lawmakers and congressional staff on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's new financial-sector bailout project, according to people who were in the room.The laughter was at its height when Obama officials explained that the White House planned to guarantee a wide swath of toxic assets -- which they referred to as "legacy assets" -- but wouldn't be asking Congress for money. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a bailout opponent in the fall, asked the officials to give Congress the total dollar figure for which they were on the hook. The officials said that they couldn't provide a number, a response met by chuckling that was bipartisan, but tilted toward the GOP side. By guaranteeing the assets, Geithner hopes he can persuade the private sector to purchase a portion of them.Earlier, Geithner laid out the "plan" in a speech. What horrified experts was that all Geithner could come up with were generalities with a promise to fill in the details "at a later date."No one knows how much it will cost. No one knows how it will work. And no one knows if Obama and Geithner aren't just making things up as they go along, stalling for time until they can come up with ideas on how to solve the crisis.Stocks responded to the overwhelming negative reaction by experts and tanked 4.6%. The consensus is that they either don't know what they're doing or they just don't have a clue about how to recapitalize the banks. There are enormous fears that the US banking system is tottering, on the edge of disaster. Some experts believe that the net worth of US banks is less than zero. And until these toxic assets are bought by someone - private investors or the government - no one knows how bad the problem really is. And until someone does, the banks are going to continue to be reluctant to lend money.

Thursday, February 05, 2009

President B. Hussen's Vile Voting Record

And his voting record that supports his love for the culture of death.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html

"I remember the days when Obama was already a rising national star in the Democratic Party and in the Illinois state legislature. And what a disappointment to us he was. He voted "present" instead of "no" on five horrendous anti-women/anti-choice bills." --E-mail from Connecticut NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.
The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. During the runup to Super Tuesday, a chain e-mail circulated among many NOW members denouncing Obama's record on abortion issues while serving as a state senator in the Illinois legislature. Echoing attacks by the Clinton campaign on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, the e-mails cited his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.
Some analysts credit the earlier attacks on Obama's abortion record with helping to shift the momentum in the New Hampshire primary in favor of Clinton. So what are we to make of these latest e-mails?
The Facts
Obama has had difficulty explaining some of his 129 "present" votes in the Illinois legislature on issues such as promoting school discipline and prohibiting sex shops near places of worship. In the case of his votes on the anti-abortion legislation, however, he has had a solid alibi. The Illinois branch of the Planned Parenthood organization has given him a "100 percent" pro-choice voting rating and depicted the present votes as part of a previously agreed strategy to provide political cover for other legislators.
Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a no vote because only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Legislators vote "present" rather than "no" for a variety of tactical reasons, including making it more difficult for their political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.
"We worked on the 'present' vote strategy with Obama," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. "He was willing to vote 'no', and was always going to be a 'no' vote for us."
Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator."
Here is a full list of Obama's seven 'present' votes on issues related to abortion:
1997 Votes
SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.
HB 382 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. House version, passed Illinois State Senate, adopted as law. Under the bill, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions could be sent to prison for one to three years. The woman would not be held liable.
2001 Votes
HB 1900 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed 38-10, with nine present votes, including Obama.
SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.
SB 1093 Law to protect Liveborn children. Bill passed 34-6, with 12 present, including Obama.
SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.
SB 1095 Bill defining "born alive" defines "born-alive infant" to include infant "born alive at any stage of development." Bill passed 34-5, with nine present, including Obama.
The president of the Chicago branch of NOW in 1997 was Lorna Brett Howard. A former Clinton supporter, Brett says that she switched last month to backing Obama because she was "enraged" by the attacks by the Clinton camp. She credited Obama with a "100 percent voting record" on "pro-choice" issues.
The current president of Illinois NOW, Bonnie Grabenhofer, issued a statement this week accusing Brett Howard of "misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills." She said that the Illinois branch of NOW did not support the strategy of voting present, at least as far as the 2001 votes were concerned, and added: "At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy."
A lobbyist for Illinois NOW, Susan Bramlet Lavin, told me that "we asked our legislators to vote no" on the 2001 bills and never endorsed the Planned Parenthood strategy of voting present. "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes," said Bramlet Lavin. She said that Illinois NOW declined to endorse Obama when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004.

President B. Hussen's Vile Voting Record

And his voting record that supports his love for the culture of death.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html

"I remember the days when Obama was already a rising national star in the Democratic Party and in the Illinois state legislature. And what a disappointment to us he was. He voted "present" instead of "no" on five horrendous anti-women/anti-choice bills." --E-mail from Connecticut NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.
The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. During the runup to Super Tuesday, a chain e-mail circulated among many NOW members denouncing Obama's record on abortion issues while serving as a state senator in the Illinois legislature. Echoing attacks by the Clinton campaign on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, the e-mails cited his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.
Some analysts credit the earlier attacks on Obama's abortion record with helping to shift the momentum in the New Hampshire primary in favor of Clinton. So what are we to make of these latest e-mails?
The Facts
Obama has had difficulty explaining some of his 129 "present" votes in the Illinois legislature on issues such as promoting school discipline and prohibiting sex shops near places of worship. In the case of his votes on the anti-abortion legislation, however, he has had a solid alibi. The Illinois branch of the Planned Parenthood organization has given him a "100 percent" pro-choice voting rating and depicted the present votes as part of a previously agreed strategy to provide political cover for other legislators.
Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a no vote because only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Legislators vote "present" rather than "no" for a variety of tactical reasons, including making it more difficult for their political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.
"We worked on the 'present' vote strategy with Obama," said Pam Sutherland, chief lobbyist for the Illinois branch of Planned Parenthood, an abortion rights group. "He was willing to vote 'no', and was always going to be a 'no' vote for us."
Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator."
Here is a full list of Obama's seven 'present' votes on issues related to abortion:
1997 Votes
SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.
HB 382 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. House version, passed Illinois State Senate, adopted as law. Under the bill, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions could be sent to prison for one to three years. The woman would not be held liable.
2001 Votes
HB 1900 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed 38-10, with nine present votes, including Obama.
SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.
SB 1093 Law to protect Liveborn children. Bill passed 34-6, with 12 present, including Obama.
SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.
SB 1095 Bill defining "born alive" defines "born-alive infant" to include infant "born alive at any stage of development." Bill passed 34-5, with nine present, including Obama.
The president of the Chicago branch of NOW in 1997 was Lorna Brett Howard. A former Clinton supporter, Brett says that she switched last month to backing Obama because she was "enraged" by the attacks by the Clinton camp. She credited Obama with a "100 percent voting record" on "pro-choice" issues.
The current president of Illinois NOW, Bonnie Grabenhofer, issued a statement this week accusing Brett Howard of "misleading people and using her very old affiliation with NOW to help distance Senator Obama from his vote of present on key bills." She said that the Illinois branch of NOW did not support the strategy of voting present, at least as far as the 2001 votes were concerned, and added: "At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy."
A lobbyist for Illinois NOW, Susan Bramlet Lavin, told me that "we asked our legislators to vote no" on the 2001 bills and never endorsed the Planned Parenthood strategy of voting present. "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes," said Bramlet Lavin. She said that Illinois NOW declined to endorse Obama when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004.

President B. Hussein Obama's Culture Of Death Lives


This story is one of the sickest I have ever read.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2009/02/05/0205abortion.html
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips

President B. Hussein Obama's Culture Of Death Lives


This story is one of the sickest I have ever read.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2009/02/05/0205abortion.html
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips

Wednesday, February 04, 2009

Star Spanglish Banner

Star Spanglish Banner

Shanklin rocks!

Osama Obama: Paul Shanklin

Osama Obama: Paul Shanklin

I May Not Be Catholic.....But I Like The Teachings!

Here is an article written in 1994. The Catholic Church is so right on many moral issues. It is easy to see why those who do not have eyes to see and ears to hear are so quick to attack the church, its true followers, and those who defend it. God bless the Catholic Church and those who are true, practicing members.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Birth ControlIn 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
The Historic Christian TeachingFew realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.
NatureContraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
ScriptureIs contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex). The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10). The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19). Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
Apostolic TraditionThe biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation. In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2). Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12). Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20). The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1). Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17). The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
The MagisteriumThe Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14). This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399). The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).
Human ExperiencePope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17). No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture. Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception.
Wishful ThinkingIgnoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly. There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience."
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

I May Not Be Catholic.....But I Like The Teachings!

Here is an article written in 1994. The Catholic Church is so right on many moral issues. It is easy to see why those who do not have eyes to see and ears to hear are so quick to attack the church, its true followers, and those who defend it. God bless the Catholic Church and those who are true, practicing members.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Birth ControlIn 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence. Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
The Historic Christian TeachingFew realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.
NatureContraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children. But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
ScriptureIs contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex). The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10). The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19). Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
Apostolic TraditionThe biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation. In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2). Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12). Around 307 Lactantius explained that some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20). The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, "If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy" (Canon 1). Augustine wrote in 419, "I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]" (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17). The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, "[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him." John Calvin said, "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring." John Wesley warned, "Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls." (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
The MagisteriumThe Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, "[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (HV 14). This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" (CCC 2370). "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception" (CCC 2399). The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).
Human ExperiencePope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17). No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture. Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception.
Wishful ThinkingIgnoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly. There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience."
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004