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.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Dr. In The House
Thanks Dr. for the great insight!
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=3936
THE DASHING OF DASCHLE THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE AS NOMINEE TO HEAD THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IS A VICTORY FOR AMERICA, A VICTORY FOR CONSERVATIVES, AND A VICTORY FOR THE SAVAGE NATION. BUT YOU WHO ARE LONGTIME LISTENERS TO THE SAVAGE NATION KNOW THAT IT IS NOT THE FIRST VICTORY. WHEN GEORGE W BUSH TRIED TO GIVE AWAY OUR PORT SECURITY APPARATUS TO DUBAI, THE SAVAGE NATION STOPPED IT. WHEN KENNEDY AND MCCAIN TRIED TO SHOVE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS DOWN THE THROATS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE SAVAGE NATION HELPED STOP THAT AS WELL. WHEN BUSH APPOINTED A INEXPERIENCED LIBERAL WOMAN TO THE SUPREME COURT, HARRIET MEIRS, THE SAVAGE NATION PUT THE PRESSURE ON AND HER NAME WAS WITHDRAWN. TIME AND AGAIN YOU HAVE SEEN THE POWER OF THIS PROGRAM, THE POWER OF REAL CONSERVATIVES BANDING TOGETHER FOR A COMMON CAUSE. WE ARE THE LAST BEST HELP FOR AMERICA. WE ARE THE LAST BULL WORK AGAINST THE RISING TIDE OF LIBERALISM AND TODAY IS ANOTHER TRIUMPH. FURTHERMORE THIS IS A DEFEAT FOR THE LIBERALISM OF BARACK OBAMA. NOMINATING A SINGLE TAX CHEAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BAD ENOUGH IN ITSELF, BUT NOMINATING THREE LIBERALS WHO REFUSE TO PAY TAXES THEMSELVES IN SPITE THE FACT THAT THEY DEMAND AN INCREASED TAX BURDEN OF YOU, WAS TOO MUCH HYPOCRISY FOR EVEN THE LEFT TO STAND. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GOT SO CAUGHT UP IN HIS OWN SELF SERVING MEDIA ADULATION, THAT HE THOUGHT HE COULD GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING. TODAY HE HAS LEARNED DEFINITIVELY THAT HE CANNOT. THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE’S NAME HAS KNOCKED THE HALO OFF OF OBAMA’S HEAD. HIS AURA OF SAINTHOOD AND INVINCIBILITY IS GONE FOREVER, AND AMERICA, EVEN LIBERAL AMERICA, IS FINALLY WAKING UP TO THE FACT THAT HE’S NOT THE NEXT MESSIAH, BUT JUST ANOTHER MARXIST.
THE COST OF ILLEGALS
AN INTERESTING IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES THE OTHER DAY. THE AUTHOR WAS TRYING TO DISPROVE THE IDEA THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS WERE A DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY IN CALIFORNIA. BUT THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE ARTICLE WAS THIS, EVEN IF YOU USE THE DELIBERATELY LOWBALL NUMBERS HE EMPLOYS TO TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH ILLEGAL ALIENS COST BOTH THE SATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES, IT’S CLEARLY AN ENORMOUS PROBLEM. THE LIBERAL LA TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS ON ILLEGAL ALIENS IN PRISON. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS HALF A BILLION DOLLARS ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION DOLLARS ON HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. AND EVEN THE FAR LEFT LOS ANGELES TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS FOUR BILLION DOLLARS ON EDUCATION FOR THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. IF EVEN THIS OUTLET OF THE GOVERNMENT MEDIA COMPLEX IS WILLING TO ADMIT TO A MORE THAN SIX BILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE REAL COST IS? EVEN THE LA TIMES ADMITS THEY ARE A DRAIN ON THE BUDGET. BUT IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST LIBERAL TEACHERS REFUSE TO ASK STUDENTS IF THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PRISON SYSTEM PROBABLY UNDERESTIMATES THE PERCENTAGE OF PRISONERS WHO ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST HOSPITALS WILL NOT ASK, AND ARE IN FACT FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO ASK ABOUT THE LEGAL STATUS OF PEOPLE WHO COME INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. IF WE TAKE ALL OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, THEN WE CAN PROBABLY ASSUME THAT THE ACTUAL COST OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IS THREE TO FOUR TIMES GREATER THAN THE LIBERALS WILL ADMIT THAT IT IS. AND CALIFORNIA IS JUST ONE STATE. THIS IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM, THIS IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY. OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE GIVING MORE MONEY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE FORM OF A STIMULUS PACKAGE. HE SHOULD BE DEPORTING THEM FROM THE COUNTRY SO THAT WE DON’T NEED A STIMULUS AT ALL.
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=3936
THE DASHING OF DASCHLE THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE AS NOMINEE TO HEAD THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IS A VICTORY FOR AMERICA, A VICTORY FOR CONSERVATIVES, AND A VICTORY FOR THE SAVAGE NATION. BUT YOU WHO ARE LONGTIME LISTENERS TO THE SAVAGE NATION KNOW THAT IT IS NOT THE FIRST VICTORY. WHEN GEORGE W BUSH TRIED TO GIVE AWAY OUR PORT SECURITY APPARATUS TO DUBAI, THE SAVAGE NATION STOPPED IT. WHEN KENNEDY AND MCCAIN TRIED TO SHOVE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS DOWN THE THROATS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE SAVAGE NATION HELPED STOP THAT AS WELL. WHEN BUSH APPOINTED A INEXPERIENCED LIBERAL WOMAN TO THE SUPREME COURT, HARRIET MEIRS, THE SAVAGE NATION PUT THE PRESSURE ON AND HER NAME WAS WITHDRAWN. TIME AND AGAIN YOU HAVE SEEN THE POWER OF THIS PROGRAM, THE POWER OF REAL CONSERVATIVES BANDING TOGETHER FOR A COMMON CAUSE. WE ARE THE LAST BEST HELP FOR AMERICA. WE ARE THE LAST BULL WORK AGAINST THE RISING TIDE OF LIBERALISM AND TODAY IS ANOTHER TRIUMPH. FURTHERMORE THIS IS A DEFEAT FOR THE LIBERALISM OF BARACK OBAMA. NOMINATING A SINGLE TAX CHEAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BAD ENOUGH IN ITSELF, BUT NOMINATING THREE LIBERALS WHO REFUSE TO PAY TAXES THEMSELVES IN SPITE THE FACT THAT THEY DEMAND AN INCREASED TAX BURDEN OF YOU, WAS TOO MUCH HYPOCRISY FOR EVEN THE LEFT TO STAND. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GOT SO CAUGHT UP IN HIS OWN SELF SERVING MEDIA ADULATION, THAT HE THOUGHT HE COULD GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING. TODAY HE HAS LEARNED DEFINITIVELY THAT HE CANNOT. THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE’S NAME HAS KNOCKED THE HALO OFF OF OBAMA’S HEAD. HIS AURA OF SAINTHOOD AND INVINCIBILITY IS GONE FOREVER, AND AMERICA, EVEN LIBERAL AMERICA, IS FINALLY WAKING UP TO THE FACT THAT HE’S NOT THE NEXT MESSIAH, BUT JUST ANOTHER MARXIST.
THE COST OF ILLEGALS
AN INTERESTING IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES THE OTHER DAY. THE AUTHOR WAS TRYING TO DISPROVE THE IDEA THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS WERE A DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY IN CALIFORNIA. BUT THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE ARTICLE WAS THIS, EVEN IF YOU USE THE DELIBERATELY LOWBALL NUMBERS HE EMPLOYS TO TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH ILLEGAL ALIENS COST BOTH THE SATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES, IT’S CLEARLY AN ENORMOUS PROBLEM. THE LIBERAL LA TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS ON ILLEGAL ALIENS IN PRISON. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS HALF A BILLION DOLLARS ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION DOLLARS ON HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. AND EVEN THE FAR LEFT LOS ANGELES TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS FOUR BILLION DOLLARS ON EDUCATION FOR THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. IF EVEN THIS OUTLET OF THE GOVERNMENT MEDIA COMPLEX IS WILLING TO ADMIT TO A MORE THAN SIX BILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE REAL COST IS? EVEN THE LA TIMES ADMITS THEY ARE A DRAIN ON THE BUDGET. BUT IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST LIBERAL TEACHERS REFUSE TO ASK STUDENTS IF THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PRISON SYSTEM PROBABLY UNDERESTIMATES THE PERCENTAGE OF PRISONERS WHO ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST HOSPITALS WILL NOT ASK, AND ARE IN FACT FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO ASK ABOUT THE LEGAL STATUS OF PEOPLE WHO COME INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. IF WE TAKE ALL OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, THEN WE CAN PROBABLY ASSUME THAT THE ACTUAL COST OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IS THREE TO FOUR TIMES GREATER THAN THE LIBERALS WILL ADMIT THAT IT IS. AND CALIFORNIA IS JUST ONE STATE. THIS IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM, THIS IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY. OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE GIVING MORE MONEY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE FORM OF A STIMULUS PACKAGE. HE SHOULD BE DEPORTING THEM FROM THE COUNTRY SO THAT WE DON’T NEED A STIMULUS AT ALL.
Dr. In The House
Thanks Dr. for the great insight!
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=3936
THE DASHING OF DASCHLE THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE AS NOMINEE TO HEAD THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IS A VICTORY FOR AMERICA, A VICTORY FOR CONSERVATIVES, AND A VICTORY FOR THE SAVAGE NATION. BUT YOU WHO ARE LONGTIME LISTENERS TO THE SAVAGE NATION KNOW THAT IT IS NOT THE FIRST VICTORY. WHEN GEORGE W BUSH TRIED TO GIVE AWAY OUR PORT SECURITY APPARATUS TO DUBAI, THE SAVAGE NATION STOPPED IT. WHEN KENNEDY AND MCCAIN TRIED TO SHOVE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS DOWN THE THROATS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE SAVAGE NATION HELPED STOP THAT AS WELL. WHEN BUSH APPOINTED A INEXPERIENCED LIBERAL WOMAN TO THE SUPREME COURT, HARRIET MEIRS, THE SAVAGE NATION PUT THE PRESSURE ON AND HER NAME WAS WITHDRAWN. TIME AND AGAIN YOU HAVE SEEN THE POWER OF THIS PROGRAM, THE POWER OF REAL CONSERVATIVES BANDING TOGETHER FOR A COMMON CAUSE. WE ARE THE LAST BEST HELP FOR AMERICA. WE ARE THE LAST BULL WORK AGAINST THE RISING TIDE OF LIBERALISM AND TODAY IS ANOTHER TRIUMPH. FURTHERMORE THIS IS A DEFEAT FOR THE LIBERALISM OF BARACK OBAMA. NOMINATING A SINGLE TAX CHEAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BAD ENOUGH IN ITSELF, BUT NOMINATING THREE LIBERALS WHO REFUSE TO PAY TAXES THEMSELVES IN SPITE THE FACT THAT THEY DEMAND AN INCREASED TAX BURDEN OF YOU, WAS TOO MUCH HYPOCRISY FOR EVEN THE LEFT TO STAND. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GOT SO CAUGHT UP IN HIS OWN SELF SERVING MEDIA ADULATION, THAT HE THOUGHT HE COULD GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING. TODAY HE HAS LEARNED DEFINITIVELY THAT HE CANNOT. THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE’S NAME HAS KNOCKED THE HALO OFF OF OBAMA’S HEAD. HIS AURA OF SAINTHOOD AND INVINCIBILITY IS GONE FOREVER, AND AMERICA, EVEN LIBERAL AMERICA, IS FINALLY WAKING UP TO THE FACT THAT HE’S NOT THE NEXT MESSIAH, BUT JUST ANOTHER MARXIST.
THE COST OF ILLEGALS
AN INTERESTING IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES THE OTHER DAY. THE AUTHOR WAS TRYING TO DISPROVE THE IDEA THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS WERE A DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY IN CALIFORNIA. BUT THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE ARTICLE WAS THIS, EVEN IF YOU USE THE DELIBERATELY LOWBALL NUMBERS HE EMPLOYS TO TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH ILLEGAL ALIENS COST BOTH THE SATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES, IT’S CLEARLY AN ENORMOUS PROBLEM. THE LIBERAL LA TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS ON ILLEGAL ALIENS IN PRISON. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS HALF A BILLION DOLLARS ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION DOLLARS ON HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. AND EVEN THE FAR LEFT LOS ANGELES TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS FOUR BILLION DOLLARS ON EDUCATION FOR THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. IF EVEN THIS OUTLET OF THE GOVERNMENT MEDIA COMPLEX IS WILLING TO ADMIT TO A MORE THAN SIX BILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE REAL COST IS? EVEN THE LA TIMES ADMITS THEY ARE A DRAIN ON THE BUDGET. BUT IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST LIBERAL TEACHERS REFUSE TO ASK STUDENTS IF THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PRISON SYSTEM PROBABLY UNDERESTIMATES THE PERCENTAGE OF PRISONERS WHO ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST HOSPITALS WILL NOT ASK, AND ARE IN FACT FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO ASK ABOUT THE LEGAL STATUS OF PEOPLE WHO COME INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. IF WE TAKE ALL OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, THEN WE CAN PROBABLY ASSUME THAT THE ACTUAL COST OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IS THREE TO FOUR TIMES GREATER THAN THE LIBERALS WILL ADMIT THAT IT IS. AND CALIFORNIA IS JUST ONE STATE. THIS IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM, THIS IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY. OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE GIVING MORE MONEY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE FORM OF A STIMULUS PACKAGE. HE SHOULD BE DEPORTING THEM FROM THE COUNTRY SO THAT WE DON’T NEED A STIMULUS AT ALL.
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=3936
THE DASHING OF DASCHLE THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE AS NOMINEE TO HEAD THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IS A VICTORY FOR AMERICA, A VICTORY FOR CONSERVATIVES, AND A VICTORY FOR THE SAVAGE NATION. BUT YOU WHO ARE LONGTIME LISTENERS TO THE SAVAGE NATION KNOW THAT IT IS NOT THE FIRST VICTORY. WHEN GEORGE W BUSH TRIED TO GIVE AWAY OUR PORT SECURITY APPARATUS TO DUBAI, THE SAVAGE NATION STOPPED IT. WHEN KENNEDY AND MCCAIN TRIED TO SHOVE AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS DOWN THE THROATS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE SAVAGE NATION HELPED STOP THAT AS WELL. WHEN BUSH APPOINTED A INEXPERIENCED LIBERAL WOMAN TO THE SUPREME COURT, HARRIET MEIRS, THE SAVAGE NATION PUT THE PRESSURE ON AND HER NAME WAS WITHDRAWN. TIME AND AGAIN YOU HAVE SEEN THE POWER OF THIS PROGRAM, THE POWER OF REAL CONSERVATIVES BANDING TOGETHER FOR A COMMON CAUSE. WE ARE THE LAST BEST HELP FOR AMERICA. WE ARE THE LAST BULL WORK AGAINST THE RISING TIDE OF LIBERALISM AND TODAY IS ANOTHER TRIUMPH. FURTHERMORE THIS IS A DEFEAT FOR THE LIBERALISM OF BARACK OBAMA. NOMINATING A SINGLE TAX CHEAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BAD ENOUGH IN ITSELF, BUT NOMINATING THREE LIBERALS WHO REFUSE TO PAY TAXES THEMSELVES IN SPITE THE FACT THAT THEY DEMAND AN INCREASED TAX BURDEN OF YOU, WAS TOO MUCH HYPOCRISY FOR EVEN THE LEFT TO STAND. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA GOT SO CAUGHT UP IN HIS OWN SELF SERVING MEDIA ADULATION, THAT HE THOUGHT HE COULD GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING. TODAY HE HAS LEARNED DEFINITIVELY THAT HE CANNOT. THE WITHDRAWAL OF TOM DASCHLE’S NAME HAS KNOCKED THE HALO OFF OF OBAMA’S HEAD. HIS AURA OF SAINTHOOD AND INVINCIBILITY IS GONE FOREVER, AND AMERICA, EVEN LIBERAL AMERICA, IS FINALLY WAKING UP TO THE FACT THAT HE’S NOT THE NEXT MESSIAH, BUT JUST ANOTHER MARXIST.
THE COST OF ILLEGALS
AN INTERESTING IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES THE OTHER DAY. THE AUTHOR WAS TRYING TO DISPROVE THE IDEA THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS WERE A DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY IN CALIFORNIA. BUT THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE ARTICLE WAS THIS, EVEN IF YOU USE THE DELIBERATELY LOWBALL NUMBERS HE EMPLOYS TO TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH ILLEGAL ALIENS COST BOTH THE SATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE UNITED STATES, IT’S CLEARLY AN ENORMOUS PROBLEM. THE LIBERAL LA TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS ON ILLEGAL ALIENS IN PRISON. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS HALF A BILLION DOLLARS ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. IT SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION DOLLARS ON HEALTHCARE FOR ILLEGAL’S. AND EVEN THE FAR LEFT LOS ANGELES TIMES SAYS CALIFORNIA SPENDS FOUR BILLION DOLLARS ON EDUCATION FOR THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. IF EVEN THIS OUTLET OF THE GOVERNMENT MEDIA COMPLEX IS WILLING TO ADMIT TO A MORE THAN SIX BILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE REAL COST IS? EVEN THE LA TIMES ADMITS THEY ARE A DRAIN ON THE BUDGET. BUT IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST LIBERAL TEACHERS REFUSE TO ASK STUDENTS IF THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE PRISON SYSTEM PROBABLY UNDERESTIMATES THE PERCENTAGE OF PRISONERS WHO ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. IF WE THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT MOST HOSPITALS WILL NOT ASK, AND ARE IN FACT FORBIDDEN BY LAW TO ASK ABOUT THE LEGAL STATUS OF PEOPLE WHO COME INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. IF WE TAKE ALL OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION, THEN WE CAN PROBABLY ASSUME THAT THE ACTUAL COST OF ILLEGAL ALIENS IS THREE TO FOUR TIMES GREATER THAN THE LIBERALS WILL ADMIT THAT IT IS. AND CALIFORNIA IS JUST ONE STATE. THIS IS A NATIONAL PROBLEM, THIS IS A NATIONAL EMERGENCY. OBAMA SHOULD NOT BE GIVING MORE MONEY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THE FORM OF A STIMULUS PACKAGE. HE SHOULD BE DEPORTING THEM FROM THE COUNTRY SO THAT WE DON’T NEED A STIMULUS AT ALL.
Monday, January 26, 2009
My Stimulus Package For America
Between repubs and dems, all we hear is "stimulus check this, stimulus check that." So, I was talking with a buddy when I came up with a few thoughts. I will post a disclaimer; I have the right to change or adapt these ideas, since they are in their early development stage. WHAT EVER THE HECK THIS MEANS!
I would start by giving all Americans a one year exemption from federal income taxes. In conjunction with implementing a flat, or fair tax on all items purchased. Still working on the percentages, so remember, to think in the big picture realm here! This national tax would also nail the bad guys who make their money illegally and are not currently paying income taxes.
I would also go after home loan companies that received bailout money. A side note here, it was many a politician who pressured these companies into making these bad loans and the people who signed the deals also carry some fault too. But I would fix a starting date for when a home loan was made...possibly 01-01-02, until 12-31-08, and these companies would be required to forgive 1/2 of the current debt to the homeowner. No monies would change hands, just the on paper amount. I would also then exempt the companies from paying taxes for 2 years.
These above measures should put much more money back into the hands of us Americans, thus energize the economy much more so than the hum drum Stimulus packages we hear about all the time.
And if nothing else, if a local Turlock cyberhillbilly can make an attempt at some new ideas, you would think all of those smart Washington politicos could do the same? Well, maybe not.
I would start by giving all Americans a one year exemption from federal income taxes. In conjunction with implementing a flat, or fair tax on all items purchased. Still working on the percentages, so remember, to think in the big picture realm here! This national tax would also nail the bad guys who make their money illegally and are not currently paying income taxes.
I would also go after home loan companies that received bailout money. A side note here, it was many a politician who pressured these companies into making these bad loans and the people who signed the deals also carry some fault too. But I would fix a starting date for when a home loan was made...possibly 01-01-02, until 12-31-08, and these companies would be required to forgive 1/2 of the current debt to the homeowner. No monies would change hands, just the on paper amount. I would also then exempt the companies from paying taxes for 2 years.
These above measures should put much more money back into the hands of us Americans, thus energize the economy much more so than the hum drum Stimulus packages we hear about all the time.
And if nothing else, if a local Turlock cyberhillbilly can make an attempt at some new ideas, you would think all of those smart Washington politicos could do the same? Well, maybe not.
My Stimulus Package For America
Between repubs and dems, all we hear is "stimulus check this, stimulus check that." So, I was talking with a buddy when I came up with a few thoughts. I will post a disclaimer; I have the right to change or adapt these ideas, since they are in their early development stage. WHAT EVER THE HECK THIS MEANS!
I would start by giving all Americans a one year exemption from federal income taxes. In conjunction with implementing a flat, or fair tax on all items purchased. Still working on the percentages, so remember, to think in the big picture realm here! This national tax would also nail the bad guys who make their money illegally and are not currently paying income taxes.
I would also go after home loan companies that received bailout money. A side note here, it was many a politician who pressured these companies into making these bad loans and the people who signed the deals also carry some fault too. But I would fix a starting date for when a home loan was made...possibly 01-01-02, until 12-31-08, and these companies would be required to forgive 1/2 of the current debt to the homeowner. No monies would change hands, just the on paper amount. I would also then exempt the companies from paying taxes for 2 years.
These above measures should put much more money back into the hands of us Americans, thus energize the economy much more so than the hum drum Stimulus packages we hear about all the time.
And if nothing else, if a local Turlock cyberhillbilly can make an attempt at some new ideas, you would think all of those smart Washington politicos could do the same? Well, maybe not.
I would start by giving all Americans a one year exemption from federal income taxes. In conjunction with implementing a flat, or fair tax on all items purchased. Still working on the percentages, so remember, to think in the big picture realm here! This national tax would also nail the bad guys who make their money illegally and are not currently paying income taxes.
I would also go after home loan companies that received bailout money. A side note here, it was many a politician who pressured these companies into making these bad loans and the people who signed the deals also carry some fault too. But I would fix a starting date for when a home loan was made...possibly 01-01-02, until 12-31-08, and these companies would be required to forgive 1/2 of the current debt to the homeowner. No monies would change hands, just the on paper amount. I would also then exempt the companies from paying taxes for 2 years.
These above measures should put much more money back into the hands of us Americans, thus energize the economy much more so than the hum drum Stimulus packages we hear about all the time.
And if nothing else, if a local Turlock cyberhillbilly can make an attempt at some new ideas, you would think all of those smart Washington politicos could do the same? Well, maybe not.
A Few Words On B. Hussein Obama From Our Friend Across The Pond
Submitted by jheaton on Mon, 2009-01-26 18:50.
Politics/Social Action
Thanks to my pal M L for this.
The Daily Mail ( UK National Paper) wrote this editorial about Obama on 1/6/2009. (for confirmation, Google " London Daily Mail Obama ' s Victory")Obama ' s Victory -- A British view An editorial from the London Daily MailA victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.A victory for Hollywood , the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition. A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers ' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity. A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.
Congratulations America
»
jheaton's blog
Politics/Social Action
Thanks to my pal M L for this.
The Daily Mail ( UK National Paper) wrote this editorial about Obama on 1/6/2009. (for confirmation, Google " London Daily Mail Obama ' s Victory")Obama ' s Victory -- A British view An editorial from the London Daily MailA victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.A victory for Hollywood , the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition. A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers ' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity. A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.
Congratulations America
»
jheaton's blog
A Few Words On B. Hussein Obama From Our Friend Across The Pond
Submitted by jheaton on Mon, 2009-01-26 18:50.
Politics/Social Action
Thanks to my pal M L for this.
The Daily Mail ( UK National Paper) wrote this editorial about Obama on 1/6/2009. (for confirmation, Google " London Daily Mail Obama ' s Victory")Obama ' s Victory -- A British view An editorial from the London Daily MailA victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.A victory for Hollywood , the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition. A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers ' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity. A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.
Congratulations America
»
jheaton's blog
Politics/Social Action
Thanks to my pal M L for this.
The Daily Mail ( UK National Paper) wrote this editorial about Obama on 1/6/2009. (for confirmation, Google " London Daily Mail Obama ' s Victory")Obama ' s Victory -- A British view An editorial from the London Daily MailA victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.A victory for Hollywood , the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition. A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers ' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity. A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.
Congratulations America
»
jheaton's blog
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Awesome Words By Bishop Robert Vasa
This man of God clearly states the truth. Abortion is murder and has become legalized infanticide here and around the world.
Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liarsBy Bishop Robert Vasa
http://sentinel.org/node/9727
BEND — The Mass readings for the week between Epiphany and the Baptism of the Lord are taken from the First Letter of St. John. These readings are not always used for it often happens, depending upon the day on which Christmas falls, that the season of ordinary time begins immediately after the celebration of Epiphany. This year, however, the occurrence of Christmas allowed for a full week between these two post-Christmas celebrations and thus the readings from St. John’s first letter. As often happens, the daily Mass readings are both appealing and challenging. The reading of Thursday from I John 4:19ff is particularly appropriate in this year when the life issues are very much on the minds of pro-life persons.
The reason for the increased awareness and even concern on the part of the pro-life community is the specter of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which is highly rumored to be in the works at the federal level. It is this act which has stimulated the bishops of the United States to launch a massive postcard campaign calling upon the House and Senate to abandon FOCA. While further details about the dramatic impact of FOCA on our American culture can be found in many places, I will simply say that it would establish abortion as a federally protected right and, as I understand it, preclude state limitation or regulation of abortion. Further, since abortion would be a federally protected right, it is very possible that even Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Physicians would be mandated to provide this heinous service.
Thus I strongly urge all who have a glimmer of concern for the lives of pre-born children to engage themselves in this postcard campaign. This is not an action which would limit or alter present permissive abortion laws, which some so-called Catholic pro-choice persons might object to, it would simply preclude a dramatic expansion of that permissiveness. Thus it would be very difficult for any Catholic, no matter how much in favor of abortion itself, to find a reason to refuse to participate in this campaign. At the same time, I do not see how any Catholic senator or representative could vote for the passage of FOCA without recognizing that such a vote would constitute a direct and intentional declaration of their disdain for Catholic teaching. Such a vote would be tantamount to a public declaration of their intention to abandon the Catholic faith. It would be imperative that the faith consequences of such a declaration be allowed to fall fully on the heads of those who would make it.The writing from St. John applies: “Beloved, we love God because He first loved us. If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from Him: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”We of the Catholic faith certainly know that love of God is central to our tenets, this is the appealing part. It is hard to imagine a Catholic saying, “I am a Catholic in good standing but I do not love God.” But the inspired scriptures tell us that whoever does not love his brother or neighbor does not and, indeed, cannot love God. This is the challenging part. The people of Jesus’ day understood this and it was this understanding that prompted them to ask, “And who is my neighbor?” For all of us, and especially for Catholic legislators in every strata of government, it is necessary to declare, in conformity with the Natural Law and the teaching of the Catholic Church that, the pre-born child is our brother, our sister, our neighbor!
It may sound a little strong to state that legislators “hate” the pre-born child but hate is an absence of love and love means to wish another well. There is nothing about abortion that wishes the pre-born child well. The preservation of abortion “rights” is already an absence of love for the pre-born child but the passage of FOCA could be construed as nothing less than active and positive disregard, even hatred, for these our brothers and sisters. To paraphrase St. John, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but votes for FOCA, thus showing a disregard for his pre-born brother or sister, he is a liar.” Lots of things can be rationalized in government but I do not see any way in which any Catholic could rationalize or justify an affirmative vote for FOCA.
It is not necessary for your postcards to be as outspoken as this bishop but you do have an obligation to participate in this concerted effort to show love for the tiniest and most defenseless of our brothers and sisters. President-elect Obama made it very clear, prior to the election, that he would happily sign FOCA and the millions of Catholics who voted for him hopefully did so for reasons other than this promise and certainly not because of it. It seems to me that it is particularly incumbent upon these same voters to make it clearly known to their representatives that their vote may not in any way be taken as a sign of support for FOCA.
Another way in which we show our affirmative love for our pre-born brothers and sisters is by way of our annual memorial on Jan. 22. This year the Diocesan Office of Pro-life Activities has scheduled a rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville on Thursday evening, Jan. 22. The rosary will commence at 6:30 p.m. with Mass beginning at 7 p.m. While I recognize that many parishes host similar memorial Masses to pray for the two-fold victims of abortion, the child and the mother, I invite any who can to join me at the rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville.
Regardless of how many years have passed since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision and regardless of how prevalent and routine abortion has become in this country, the simple truth remains, it is an act of extreme violence to the pre-born child and to the distressed mother. Thus, if anyone says, “I love God” and still favors abortion, he is, to quote St. John, a liar. May we all live out faithfully what it means to love God.
Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liarsBy Bishop Robert Vasa
http://sentinel.org/node/9727
BEND — The Mass readings for the week between Epiphany and the Baptism of the Lord are taken from the First Letter of St. John. These readings are not always used for it often happens, depending upon the day on which Christmas falls, that the season of ordinary time begins immediately after the celebration of Epiphany. This year, however, the occurrence of Christmas allowed for a full week between these two post-Christmas celebrations and thus the readings from St. John’s first letter. As often happens, the daily Mass readings are both appealing and challenging. The reading of Thursday from I John 4:19ff is particularly appropriate in this year when the life issues are very much on the minds of pro-life persons.
The reason for the increased awareness and even concern on the part of the pro-life community is the specter of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which is highly rumored to be in the works at the federal level. It is this act which has stimulated the bishops of the United States to launch a massive postcard campaign calling upon the House and Senate to abandon FOCA. While further details about the dramatic impact of FOCA on our American culture can be found in many places, I will simply say that it would establish abortion as a federally protected right and, as I understand it, preclude state limitation or regulation of abortion. Further, since abortion would be a federally protected right, it is very possible that even Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Physicians would be mandated to provide this heinous service.
Thus I strongly urge all who have a glimmer of concern for the lives of pre-born children to engage themselves in this postcard campaign. This is not an action which would limit or alter present permissive abortion laws, which some so-called Catholic pro-choice persons might object to, it would simply preclude a dramatic expansion of that permissiveness. Thus it would be very difficult for any Catholic, no matter how much in favor of abortion itself, to find a reason to refuse to participate in this campaign. At the same time, I do not see how any Catholic senator or representative could vote for the passage of FOCA without recognizing that such a vote would constitute a direct and intentional declaration of their disdain for Catholic teaching. Such a vote would be tantamount to a public declaration of their intention to abandon the Catholic faith. It would be imperative that the faith consequences of such a declaration be allowed to fall fully on the heads of those who would make it.The writing from St. John applies: “Beloved, we love God because He first loved us. If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from Him: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”We of the Catholic faith certainly know that love of God is central to our tenets, this is the appealing part. It is hard to imagine a Catholic saying, “I am a Catholic in good standing but I do not love God.” But the inspired scriptures tell us that whoever does not love his brother or neighbor does not and, indeed, cannot love God. This is the challenging part. The people of Jesus’ day understood this and it was this understanding that prompted them to ask, “And who is my neighbor?” For all of us, and especially for Catholic legislators in every strata of government, it is necessary to declare, in conformity with the Natural Law and the teaching of the Catholic Church that, the pre-born child is our brother, our sister, our neighbor!
It may sound a little strong to state that legislators “hate” the pre-born child but hate is an absence of love and love means to wish another well. There is nothing about abortion that wishes the pre-born child well. The preservation of abortion “rights” is already an absence of love for the pre-born child but the passage of FOCA could be construed as nothing less than active and positive disregard, even hatred, for these our brothers and sisters. To paraphrase St. John, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but votes for FOCA, thus showing a disregard for his pre-born brother or sister, he is a liar.” Lots of things can be rationalized in government but I do not see any way in which any Catholic could rationalize or justify an affirmative vote for FOCA.
It is not necessary for your postcards to be as outspoken as this bishop but you do have an obligation to participate in this concerted effort to show love for the tiniest and most defenseless of our brothers and sisters. President-elect Obama made it very clear, prior to the election, that he would happily sign FOCA and the millions of Catholics who voted for him hopefully did so for reasons other than this promise and certainly not because of it. It seems to me that it is particularly incumbent upon these same voters to make it clearly known to their representatives that their vote may not in any way be taken as a sign of support for FOCA.
Another way in which we show our affirmative love for our pre-born brothers and sisters is by way of our annual memorial on Jan. 22. This year the Diocesan Office of Pro-life Activities has scheduled a rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville on Thursday evening, Jan. 22. The rosary will commence at 6:30 p.m. with Mass beginning at 7 p.m. While I recognize that many parishes host similar memorial Masses to pray for the two-fold victims of abortion, the child and the mother, I invite any who can to join me at the rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville.
Regardless of how many years have passed since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision and regardless of how prevalent and routine abortion has become in this country, the simple truth remains, it is an act of extreme violence to the pre-born child and to the distressed mother. Thus, if anyone says, “I love God” and still favors abortion, he is, to quote St. John, a liar. May we all live out faithfully what it means to love God.
Awesome Words By Bishop Robert Vasa
This man of God clearly states the truth. Abortion is murder and has become legalized infanticide here and around the world.
Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liarsBy Bishop Robert Vasa
http://sentinel.org/node/9727
BEND — The Mass readings for the week between Epiphany and the Baptism of the Lord are taken from the First Letter of St. John. These readings are not always used for it often happens, depending upon the day on which Christmas falls, that the season of ordinary time begins immediately after the celebration of Epiphany. This year, however, the occurrence of Christmas allowed for a full week between these two post-Christmas celebrations and thus the readings from St. John’s first letter. As often happens, the daily Mass readings are both appealing and challenging. The reading of Thursday from I John 4:19ff is particularly appropriate in this year when the life issues are very much on the minds of pro-life persons.
The reason for the increased awareness and even concern on the part of the pro-life community is the specter of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which is highly rumored to be in the works at the federal level. It is this act which has stimulated the bishops of the United States to launch a massive postcard campaign calling upon the House and Senate to abandon FOCA. While further details about the dramatic impact of FOCA on our American culture can be found in many places, I will simply say that it would establish abortion as a federally protected right and, as I understand it, preclude state limitation or regulation of abortion. Further, since abortion would be a federally protected right, it is very possible that even Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Physicians would be mandated to provide this heinous service.
Thus I strongly urge all who have a glimmer of concern for the lives of pre-born children to engage themselves in this postcard campaign. This is not an action which would limit or alter present permissive abortion laws, which some so-called Catholic pro-choice persons might object to, it would simply preclude a dramatic expansion of that permissiveness. Thus it would be very difficult for any Catholic, no matter how much in favor of abortion itself, to find a reason to refuse to participate in this campaign. At the same time, I do not see how any Catholic senator or representative could vote for the passage of FOCA without recognizing that such a vote would constitute a direct and intentional declaration of their disdain for Catholic teaching. Such a vote would be tantamount to a public declaration of their intention to abandon the Catholic faith. It would be imperative that the faith consequences of such a declaration be allowed to fall fully on the heads of those who would make it.The writing from St. John applies: “Beloved, we love God because He first loved us. If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from Him: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”We of the Catholic faith certainly know that love of God is central to our tenets, this is the appealing part. It is hard to imagine a Catholic saying, “I am a Catholic in good standing but I do not love God.” But the inspired scriptures tell us that whoever does not love his brother or neighbor does not and, indeed, cannot love God. This is the challenging part. The people of Jesus’ day understood this and it was this understanding that prompted them to ask, “And who is my neighbor?” For all of us, and especially for Catholic legislators in every strata of government, it is necessary to declare, in conformity with the Natural Law and the teaching of the Catholic Church that, the pre-born child is our brother, our sister, our neighbor!
It may sound a little strong to state that legislators “hate” the pre-born child but hate is an absence of love and love means to wish another well. There is nothing about abortion that wishes the pre-born child well. The preservation of abortion “rights” is already an absence of love for the pre-born child but the passage of FOCA could be construed as nothing less than active and positive disregard, even hatred, for these our brothers and sisters. To paraphrase St. John, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but votes for FOCA, thus showing a disregard for his pre-born brother or sister, he is a liar.” Lots of things can be rationalized in government but I do not see any way in which any Catholic could rationalize or justify an affirmative vote for FOCA.
It is not necessary for your postcards to be as outspoken as this bishop but you do have an obligation to participate in this concerted effort to show love for the tiniest and most defenseless of our brothers and sisters. President-elect Obama made it very clear, prior to the election, that he would happily sign FOCA and the millions of Catholics who voted for him hopefully did so for reasons other than this promise and certainly not because of it. It seems to me that it is particularly incumbent upon these same voters to make it clearly known to their representatives that their vote may not in any way be taken as a sign of support for FOCA.
Another way in which we show our affirmative love for our pre-born brothers and sisters is by way of our annual memorial on Jan. 22. This year the Diocesan Office of Pro-life Activities has scheduled a rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville on Thursday evening, Jan. 22. The rosary will commence at 6:30 p.m. with Mass beginning at 7 p.m. While I recognize that many parishes host similar memorial Masses to pray for the two-fold victims of abortion, the child and the mother, I invite any who can to join me at the rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville.
Regardless of how many years have passed since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision and regardless of how prevalent and routine abortion has become in this country, the simple truth remains, it is an act of extreme violence to the pre-born child and to the distressed mother. Thus, if anyone says, “I love God” and still favors abortion, he is, to quote St. John, a liar. May we all live out faithfully what it means to love God.
Those who profess to love God, but back abortion, are liarsBy Bishop Robert Vasa
http://sentinel.org/node/9727
BEND — The Mass readings for the week between Epiphany and the Baptism of the Lord are taken from the First Letter of St. John. These readings are not always used for it often happens, depending upon the day on which Christmas falls, that the season of ordinary time begins immediately after the celebration of Epiphany. This year, however, the occurrence of Christmas allowed for a full week between these two post-Christmas celebrations and thus the readings from St. John’s first letter. As often happens, the daily Mass readings are both appealing and challenging. The reading of Thursday from I John 4:19ff is particularly appropriate in this year when the life issues are very much on the minds of pro-life persons.
The reason for the increased awareness and even concern on the part of the pro-life community is the specter of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which is highly rumored to be in the works at the federal level. It is this act which has stimulated the bishops of the United States to launch a massive postcard campaign calling upon the House and Senate to abandon FOCA. While further details about the dramatic impact of FOCA on our American culture can be found in many places, I will simply say that it would establish abortion as a federally protected right and, as I understand it, preclude state limitation or regulation of abortion. Further, since abortion would be a federally protected right, it is very possible that even Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Physicians would be mandated to provide this heinous service.
Thus I strongly urge all who have a glimmer of concern for the lives of pre-born children to engage themselves in this postcard campaign. This is not an action which would limit or alter present permissive abortion laws, which some so-called Catholic pro-choice persons might object to, it would simply preclude a dramatic expansion of that permissiveness. Thus it would be very difficult for any Catholic, no matter how much in favor of abortion itself, to find a reason to refuse to participate in this campaign. At the same time, I do not see how any Catholic senator or representative could vote for the passage of FOCA without recognizing that such a vote would constitute a direct and intentional declaration of their disdain for Catholic teaching. Such a vote would be tantamount to a public declaration of their intention to abandon the Catholic faith. It would be imperative that the faith consequences of such a declaration be allowed to fall fully on the heads of those who would make it.The writing from St. John applies: “Beloved, we love God because He first loved us. If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. This is the commandment we have from Him: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.”We of the Catholic faith certainly know that love of God is central to our tenets, this is the appealing part. It is hard to imagine a Catholic saying, “I am a Catholic in good standing but I do not love God.” But the inspired scriptures tell us that whoever does not love his brother or neighbor does not and, indeed, cannot love God. This is the challenging part. The people of Jesus’ day understood this and it was this understanding that prompted them to ask, “And who is my neighbor?” For all of us, and especially for Catholic legislators in every strata of government, it is necessary to declare, in conformity with the Natural Law and the teaching of the Catholic Church that, the pre-born child is our brother, our sister, our neighbor!
It may sound a little strong to state that legislators “hate” the pre-born child but hate is an absence of love and love means to wish another well. There is nothing about abortion that wishes the pre-born child well. The preservation of abortion “rights” is already an absence of love for the pre-born child but the passage of FOCA could be construed as nothing less than active and positive disregard, even hatred, for these our brothers and sisters. To paraphrase St. John, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ but votes for FOCA, thus showing a disregard for his pre-born brother or sister, he is a liar.” Lots of things can be rationalized in government but I do not see any way in which any Catholic could rationalize or justify an affirmative vote for FOCA.
It is not necessary for your postcards to be as outspoken as this bishop but you do have an obligation to participate in this concerted effort to show love for the tiniest and most defenseless of our brothers and sisters. President-elect Obama made it very clear, prior to the election, that he would happily sign FOCA and the millions of Catholics who voted for him hopefully did so for reasons other than this promise and certainly not because of it. It seems to me that it is particularly incumbent upon these same voters to make it clearly known to their representatives that their vote may not in any way be taken as a sign of support for FOCA.
Another way in which we show our affirmative love for our pre-born brothers and sisters is by way of our annual memorial on Jan. 22. This year the Diocesan Office of Pro-life Activities has scheduled a rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville on Thursday evening, Jan. 22. The rosary will commence at 6:30 p.m. with Mass beginning at 7 p.m. While I recognize that many parishes host similar memorial Masses to pray for the two-fold victims of abortion, the child and the mother, I invite any who can to join me at the rosary and Mass at St. Joseph’s in Prineville.
Regardless of how many years have passed since the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court Decision and regardless of how prevalent and routine abortion has become in this country, the simple truth remains, it is an act of extreme violence to the pre-born child and to the distressed mother. Thus, if anyone says, “I love God” and still favors abortion, he is, to quote St. John, a liar. May we all live out faithfully what it means to love God.
President B Hussein Obama....Tears Of disappointment Are On Their Way
The Immoral One, who is our president, will not leave this great nation a better place when he is voted out in four years.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/01/20/barack_obama_inauguration_this_emperor_has_no_clothes_it_will_all_end_in_tears
Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Jan 20, 2009 at 18:50:54 [General]
Posted in: Society , Eagle Eye
Tags:
Barack Obama, Freedom of Choice Act, Neil Kinnock, stimulus package, Tony Blair
This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahison des clercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.
We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.
The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.
To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.
Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).
It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.
It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.
These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/01/20/barack_obama_inauguration_this_emperor_has_no_clothes_it_will_all_end_in_tears
Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Jan 20, 2009 at 18:50:54 [General]
Posted in: Society , Eagle Eye
Tags:
Barack Obama, Freedom of Choice Act, Neil Kinnock, stimulus package, Tony Blair
This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahison des clercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.
We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.
The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.
To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.
Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).
It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.
It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.
These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.
President B Hussein Obama....Tears Of disappointment Are On Their Way
The Immoral One, who is our president, will not leave this great nation a better place when he is voted out in four years.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/01/20/barack_obama_inauguration_this_emperor_has_no_clothes_it_will_all_end_in_tears
Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Jan 20, 2009 at 18:50:54 [General]
Posted in: Society , Eagle Eye
Tags:
Barack Obama, Freedom of Choice Act, Neil Kinnock, stimulus package, Tony Blair
This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahison des clercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.
We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.
The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.
To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.
Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).
It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.
It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.
These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/01/20/barack_obama_inauguration_this_emperor_has_no_clothes_it_will_all_end_in_tears
Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Jan 20, 2009 at 18:50:54 [General]
Posted in: Society , Eagle Eye
Tags:
Barack Obama, Freedom of Choice Act, Neil Kinnock, stimulus package, Tony Blair
This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahison des clercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.
We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.
The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.
To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.
Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).
It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.
It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.
These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)