"...if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free..."

Nope, nothing wrong here.

I wonder about Stupak...

I don't mean to start rumors. I have no facts to back this up, and unless someone comes out and says it, I can probably never prove it. But I have to ask the logical question:

Was Stupak given an offer he couldn't refuse?

And yes, I mean it that way. More than one comment came out about the fact that his wife was getting harassing calls at their home. The man who brokered the deal with Bart Stupak is a former lobbyist connected with Planned Parenthood (I'll get the link). This administration is known for its Chicago-thug tactics, its association with ACORN (and we've seen what its employees have no scruples about doing), and its commitment to dividing and conquering any pro-life opposition.

Stupak couldn't have been stupid enough to think that the pro-choice president who overturned the Mexico City policy on his first day in office by Executive Order (thereby allowing taxpayer funds to pay for abortions overseas) would keep his promise to prevent taxpayer funds to pay for abortions domestically. Was this just offered as cover?

Just wondering. And I'd love to hear how I'm a crackpot for asking. But I bet you've wondered, too.

Just a quick post to say...

...I'm still alive. Work went from being like the Maytag repairman to being, well, buried.

I'm taking a much-needed break today to go to a Catholic Men's conference in Woooosta, MA with a bunch of other guys from my area. (Thanks, honey!) Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Dale Alquist are among the speakers. It should be a good day.

Keep praying for votes, not just "no" votes, but "HELL, NO!" votes.

This health care bill is not only an attack on the sanctity of life, but also the freedom of all Americans in this country. Have you called your Congressman?

Did I mention to pray?

Letter to the Editor published today

http://www.theday.com/article/20100222/OP02/302229957

The Associated Press article "Genetic testing curbs some inherited diseases," published Feb. 18, is fraught with disastrous consequences.
The author does not understand that good ends don't justify evil means. She also clearly cannot distinguish between a morally good action and a morally bad action as she doesn't hold in her excitement for the reduction of deadly diseases precipitated by killing off babies in the womb who have a deadly disease.
Is this the future of health care? Instead of treating sick people and attempting to cure disease, the medical profession will identify the sick and recommend them for elimination?
In the future, will those in the medical profession recommend abortion, not just for babies with fatal illnesses but for anything that categorizes them as genetically inferior?
I already know the answer, for that is not the nightmare of some far-off distant future, but is already a reality now.
And it seems that we've been down this path before.

You can also read my post on this subject (in more detail) at CatholicVoteAction.org or comment at CMR's post as well.

Exultet joins onto CatholicVoteAction.org

Well, I'm no Thomas Peters, but I do get to be in the same room with him (and Josh Mercer, Brian Burch, and a number of other great Catholic bloggers). Check out my first post at CatholicVoteAction.org.

It's my first post there, so go easy on me in the combox? Merci!

George Soros met with his advisors this morning...

I've seen a few different versions of this video, but this is the best one yet.



h/t Patrick Madrid

Senator Dodd calls it quits!

...and me working in a company full of men save the one extremely liberal woman, I had no one to hug when I heard the news.

My guess is he got a phone call from Rahm explaining that it was not in the best interests of the Party for him to run again. I just wonder what job he was promised in the administration next year. Ruining-the-banking-industry-Czar?

Within minutes of Dodd's announcement came the news that CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will run for the Democratic ticket for the seat. He is bound to be the Democratic candidate, as he is very popular in this heavily Democratic state. (Though as we have seen from his adament pro-choice stance and his comments in last year's Catholic Church tax exempt debacle, Blumenthal is no friend of ours.)

The Republican primary will be a showdown cage-match style between Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons, both of whom are pro-choice. Since no pro-life candidate is running for the seat, we'll have to look at other factors. I'm inclined to support Simmons given his other conservative stances, especially in matters of national security and fiscal responsibility, but either one of the Republican candidates will really have to bang the drum to overcome the charm and recognition of CT's liberal posterboy, Dick Blumenthal. This race will determine if the frustration Connecticut citizens have expressed toward Senator Dodd is merely over his arrogance and disregard for his constituents or over the roughshod manner in which the Democratic machine is running this country headlong into a ditch.

I never understood why...

Samuel L. Jackson ever agreed to play such a wimpy and uninspiring role in the new Star Wars episodes.

This is how it should have gone down.

A Portrait in Contrasts

...between what happens when a conservative is at the podium versus when a liberal is at the podium:

http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/health/healthy_living/health-care-reform-and-abortion-clash

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/leftist-thugs-shut-down-sheriff-joe-arpaios-free-speech-at-asu-first-amendment-forum-video/

Now, in the Kennedy case, Christopher Young shouldn't have thrown the DVD. That, I believe, is really what got the ball rolling for him getting thrown out of the forum. But Kennedy never answered the salient point. Because there's no good answer.

Ban divorce?

The sad fact is that this idiot has a point...if only he'd get off his high-hubris to recognize it.

Smarter people than me have pointed out that "gay marriage" is not a death-threat to traditional marriage in this county. It's just the slimy kid down the street poking its already decaying carcass.

The real threat to marriage is no-fault divorce. Now, I'm not talking about situations where there is mental or physical abuse. People have a right not to be abused and should be able to get away from their abusers.

I'm talking about, "You know, honey, I woke up this morning and I don't feel like being married to you anymore" kind of divorce. The month-long Hollywood "irreconcilable differences" divorce. The "I just want to find myself and it's not with you" divorce.

Before my wife and I got married we made a pact- no divorce. Period. As a product of a home shattered by divorce, my wife experience first-hand the pain and destruction that a failed marriage leaves behind. The hurt, resentment, mistrust, anger and doubt that it leaves on children, especially.

Some might think our pact naive. To those who would say so, I would point out that when a couple gets married with the possibility that if things "don't work out" they have an exit door, it's only a matter of time until they use it. When you decide that there is no leaving, you make every decision differently. You find a way to forgive, to reconcile, to ask forgiveness. You find a way to be patient and caring when you don't feel like it. You seek counseling if necessary. You make sacrifices. You pray and work and struggle to put the other's welfare first. Conversely, when the marriage is by definition, not permanent, why take the trouble to care?

To others, though, our pact seems redundant.

Until the culture as a whole sees such a pact as redundant, marriage will continue to travel down the cultural path towards the realm of quaint, irrelevant leftovers of an earlier time.

Until we appreciate what marriage truly is, there is no argument against "gay marriage".

Flashback

My wife and I were watching this online the other night and couldn't help but think that such a skit today would be lost on the audience, as so many of the predictions of 1984 and Brave New World have come true, that many people wouldn't recognize the irony that made this skit funny when it aired. Note the question at 3:15 and the audience reaction. They could laugh because the Culture of Death hadn't yet progressed from abortion-rights to promotion of outright infanticide.

Obama shows his cards on abortion and health care

Obama's reaction to the House passage of the health care legislation with the Stupak amendment reveals where this is all going.

The Stupak amendment bans federal funding of abortion, which means that those who wish to have an abortion or who think they might need one in the future will either have to pay for one directly or will need to purchase the insurance with abortion coverage at their own expense.

Then Obama expresses concern that the amendment will restrict women's choices and opportunity to get such "health care."

Is he really afraid that purchasing private health care will be an actual restriction on procuring an abortion? That could only be the case if there is no private health insurance. There would only be no private health insurance if we move to the single-payer system, which Senator Obama declared was a goal of his. Many people have criticized the government intervention in health care as paving the way for single-payer health care, a charge that President Obama, Pelosi and Reid have vehemently denied. Who do you believe, them or your own eyes and ears?

The Dog That Didn't Bark Finally Barks

President Obama said to a joint session of Congress that his plan for health care reform would not use Federal dollars to pay for abortions. Yet we knew even at the time that he was lying.

When he announced in his plan to make the Federal government the biggest health insurance provider in the nation that it wouldn't pay for abortions, do you remember the giant uproar it caused among abortion providers and their supporters? Remember the hand-wringing that went on by those worried that abortions would be underfunded and the abortion industry would be left out in the cold unable to offer their necessary services to women who need them? Oh, wait, that's right. There was no uproar. In fact, they didn't say "boo." No rants by Maureen Dowd, no e-mail campaign by Planned Parenthood, no released statements by Naral. Nothing. Not even a wimper by Pseudo-Catholics for Free Choice.

Apparently, they had reason to think that President Obama either didn't mean what he said or there was a giant loophole in his meaning. Well, Congressman Stupak provided the answer to that riddle. Obama was talking about a bill that didn't exist while the bills that existed in reality did and still do cover abortions with Federal (taxpayer-supplied) dollars, despite numerous attempts to amend the bills otherwise.

But even when pro-life amendments to the House and Senate bills were proposed, there was still no uproar from the abortion industry; that is, until now. Planned Parenthood is attacking the Catholic Church.

It is now perfectly clear that abortion will be covered under the plans that President Obama, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi are pushing. And the Catholic Church is pushing back. In the last couple of weeks, the USCCB declared that unless abortion is taken out of the federal coverage and meaningful conscience protections are put in place, it will be forced to oppose the single reform that the Catholic bishops have been hoping for since the 1950's.

The only problem is, I don't know if they'll keep pushing or if they'll cave. History is not on our side. The Plan B "contraceptive" debacle that embroiled the State of CT and the CT Catholic Conference a few years back paints a disheartening picture: the bishops loudly declare that they'll fight to the end, then timidly release a statement on page A9 at the last hour admitting that the abortifacient would be allowed in Catholic hospitals.

I believed then that the bishops had a much stronger position than they either imagined or were willing to put on the table. If the Church had threatened to close its hospitals in the state--and I don't mean sell them to another health care company-- I mean, lay off the staff, demolish the buildings and set the land as a nature preserve, the state would have backed off in a heartbeat.

But that's not what happened. Instead, we got a half-hearted hope that the pill which was known to have abortifacient properties might not actually be acting as such. Sigh.

I fear that the bulletin-insert campaign (which, btw, many readers at CMR report didn't happen in their parishes this past weekend) is a little too little, too late.

Maybe I'm being naive, and if someone can help me understand this, please do. Why can't the bishops threaten to close Catholic hospitals if the health care proposal covers abortion with taxpayer dollars? Why can't they threaten it now unless a pro-life amendment is passed? What government body is going to find the funding to rebuild hundreds of hospitals throughout the country? And what politician is going to want that on his resume-- (I forced Catholic hospitals to close)?

If you like logic

...and enjoy tearing apart the ridiculous arguments made by people who clearly don't understand it, then I think you'll enjoy this read at American Papist.

bloodmoney

The same people who can't say the word "Halliburton" without cringing and ranting about corporate greed, conspiracy theories and the evil Dick Cheney will suddenly light up with praise for the completely altruistic Planned Parenthood. But the truth will eventually come to light.

h/t: DM

If only Obama could hide the truth...

...he'd be as successful as LBJ in enacting health care reform. At least that's what NPR's Renee Montagne and her guest James Monroe concluded in this story that aired on August 26th.

Johnson maneuvered every step of the way getting this bill through Congress, and one of the things he did — and this is a little dicey in today's climate — was suppress the costs. So this young kid gets elected from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, in 1962, and Johnson is explaining to him [over the phone] how you get a health bill through. And what he tells him is don't let them get the costs projected too far out because it will scare other people:

"A health program yesterday runs $300 million, but the fools had to go to projecting it down the road five or six years, and when you project it the first year, it runs $900 million. Now I don't know whether I would approve $900 million second year or not. I might approve 450 or 500. But the first thing Dick Russell comes running in saying, 'My God, you've got a billion-dollar program for next year on health, therefore I'm against any of it now.' Do you follow me?"

We believe, after looking at the evidence, my co-author [David Blumenthal] and I, that if the true cost of Medicare had been known — if Johnson hadn't basically hidden them — the program would never have passed. America's second-most beloved program would never have happened, if we had had genuine cost estimates.

Ya got that? One of the most "beloved" entitlement programs in American history, which is headed into insolvency only passed because Johnson hid the actual cost of the program. And a host on NPR offers this as advice to President Obama in order to pass health care reform. You see, what Mr. Monroe calls "dicey" is known better by a different word: "deceit."

But do you get the bigger implication here? Medicare is the second-most beloved program in America and it would have gotten derailed if people had been scared off by the cost of it. And all of you fear-mongers trying to derail this health care reform just don't know what's best for you like we do. If only you'd shut up and let us pass this without your opposition, you'd get another giant entitlement program that everyone will love twenty or thirty years from now.

Except that there's this nagging fact about Medicare: it's going to be bankrupt because the money was mismanaged and the original cost was incorrectly predicted. But there's no reason to think that will happen in this case, is there?

In other 11th hour conversion news

President Obama has become increasingly cozy with (using) religious groups who can help him sell the health care reform bill. One project he's now working with is 40 Days for Health Reform. This amalgamation of religious groups includes Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, both groups focused on social justice, while their websites have very little, if anything, to say about the abortion holocaust in the U.S. (Noticeably absent: USCCB). From their website:

40 Minutes for Health Reform: National Faith Community Call to Action with special guest President Obama Wednesday, August 19, an estimated 140,000 people of faith gathered on a historic national conference call with President Barack Obama and the American faith community.

COMMIT TO DO YOUR PART DURING 40 DAYS FOR HEALTH REFORM

Over the next 40 days, people of faith are leading a national campaign for health care reform. While members of Congress are in their home districts, we’ll be holding hundreds of prayer vigils and in-district events. We’ll sign petitions, write our representatives, organize a nationwide conference call for people of faith, and air a national TV ad –all to say the faith community supports health care reform.

What I noticed was absent was any discussion on why the particular kind of health care reform that the White House and Democratic members of Congress are proposing is the right plan. There are no citations as to why the health care plan doesn't actually cover abortion, doesn't actually lead to more rationing of care, doesn't actually lead to more government control. No explanations necessary, I s'pose. God is Obama's partner in this, folks. Are you going to go against God?

And what of the 40 Days? Prayer vigils, letter writing campaigns, petitions... I wonder where they got that idea from? It doesn't explain the significance on their site, but I suspect I know the source.

AmP points out another place where the White House has no problems emulating the work of others for his own purposes while being deceptively silent on the issue of abortion.

Planned Parenthood caught lying...

The White House and its political allies are on a heated campaign to dispel “myths.” One such myth cited is that the current health care legislation would not cover abortion. An August 14th letter in the Day by Vice President of Public Affairs and Communication for Planned Parenthood of Connecticut, Susan Yolen, reiterates such a clarification by stating, “It is a myth that abortion care coverage will be mandated in health care reform.” The problem is, however, that she is dead wrong. While the text of the bill (which I have read) did not state definitively either way, Senator Barbara Mikulski admitted to other Senate committee members that it would, in fact cover abortions and refused to consider including text which would forbid the coverage of abortions under the new plan.

If that seem inconclusive, then consider the Capps Amendment to the bill, passed in The Committee on Energy and Commerce on July 30th, two weeks before Ms. Yolen’s letter. It not only states that private plans in the Health Exchange must have at least one plan that covers abortion but that the public option shall provide coverage for abortions. This amendment can be read here: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1721:energy-and-commerce-markup-on-hr-3200-the-americas-affordable-health-choices-act-of-2009&catid=141:full-committee&Itemid=85

If this health care legislation were to pass in its current form, it would mean that taxpayer dollars would be used to kill babies in the womb. This is not a myth, it is a fact, and no amount of repetition by the White House and Planned Parenthood can change that.

A letter from a fishy American (sent to flag@whitehouse.gov)

Dear Mr. President (and the multitude of staff screening the correspondence on this email),

I am writing to let you know that I am a fishy American. I do not accept the party line that you expect Americans to believe on the issues of health care reform. I am deeply concerned about a socialist future, as well as end-of-life health care rationing and taxpayer-funded abortions. I reject this plan and will continue to voice my concerns to you, my senators and representative in Congress, and my family and friends.

To make it easier for you to track the use of my First Amendment right, please feel free to read on my blog:
www.exultetmeansrejoice.blogspot.com

Thank you.

A concerned citizen.

an offer we can't refuse

Maybe I'm being a little paranoid here, but lately I've been thinking an awful lot about Michael Corleone.

In the Godfather II, Michael Corleone, the head of the Corleone crime family, was about to be brought before a Senate committee investigating the allegations of his powerful organization. One of the members of that committee was Senator Pat Geary, the Nevada senator who was strongly opposed to Michael Corleone's presence in the powerful gambling industry.

The Corleones knew that Senator Geary was powerful and his opposition would be detrimental to their operations; his support was crucial.

The problem that Senator Geary had, though, was that he cheated on his wife. Frequently. With a hooker. Bad idea jeans, Senator, because in one such encounter with the particular hooker he frequented, she mysteriously and suddenly died while he was passed out on the bed. And the cardinal rule of politics is that you should never get caught with a dead girl or a live boy. The senator had a problem on his hands, and he knew it. But then comes a knock at the door. Tom Hagen, Michael Corleone's consigliere, walks in and assures the Senator that the Corleone family owns the hotel at which they are staying and no one will find out what happened. Consider it a favor, eh?

The audience knows full well that the entire episode was a setup. One of Corleone's men drugged the senator to knock him out and killed the girl. But it really doesn't matter if Senator Geary was setup. He can't exactly go running to the police to say that someone killed the hooker in his bed.

Bought. Paid. Owned. Senator Geary was given an offer he couldn't refuse and was now in the pocket of Michael Corleone.

I am reminded of this scene with all the crises that have befallen this country lately. Housing crisis, banking crisis, automotive crisis, insurance crisis, health care crisis, and on and on. All of these crises arguably created by the mismanagement and over-regulation of the government who then steps in to save the day by offering its help. But, oh yeah, you'll have to take our direction if you want our assistance. We'll make the rules from now on. Move over, that's my seat, Mr. Chairman.

Ronald Reagan once said that the scariest nine words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."