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."

Update on prayer request

Last week I asked you to pray for some friends of mine who were experiencing complications during pregnancy. We found out this morning that they lost the baby. Of course, they are devastated, so please offer up another prayer for their family.

God bless.

Obama and the war in Iraq

So as Patrick at CMR is reviewing his predictions, I'd like to review one of my own. Last year on CV my wife and I battled constantly with Catholics who were willing to trade off their vote on pro-life issues for other "proportionate" reasons. They cited numerous things: Obama would fix the economy, he would make it easier for pregnant women to keep their babies, he would help the poor, and he would end the war in Iraq. They claimed all of these things outweighed the 1.7 million babies aborted every year in the U.S. They ignored Obama's intention to overturn the Mexico City policy, they ignored his voting four times against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. They said ending the war in Iraq outweighed it.

I tread lightly in this post because I take no pleasure in the facts at hand. But I have to say that I was right. I argued more than once that Obama's plan to remove troops from Iraq at the pace of a brigade a month was unreasonable, dangerous, and deceptive. I argued repeatedly that unless stability was firmly reached in Iraq, reducing the number of troops there prematurely would place the remaining troops in greater danger and might also undermine the gains that have been achieved. I argued that Obama would end up doing almost exactly as McCain promised he would do, and that was to leave troops in Iraq until the job was finished.

But they wouldn't listen. Obama was the enlightened one. He wanted to end the war in Iraq, unlike the war-monger John McCain. He wanted to bring peace and happiness, unlike the ex-military man John McCain. Obama would do it all.

Except he didn't and he won't. He'll just tell you he will.

Tom Ricks, a senior fellow at the Center for A New American Security, in this NPR interview explains how the Obama administration is doing in Iraq what I predicted it would do, despite his campaign promises to the contrary.

The Culture of Death spares no one.

As we see here in the sixth video from the Mona Lisa Project exposing Planned Parenthood employees not reporting alleged cases of statutory rape.

And this hideous article from Askmen.com showing all you selfless, caring, responsible men how to convince your girlfriend to have someone butcher your child.

h/t CMR

jib jab obama

OK,

this is just too funny not to post.

I'll bet LarryD's HADAR is buzzing right now...

Where are the womynpreests when you need them?

All humor is funny because it at least has a semblance of truth...

...but I wouldn't worry about it if government takes over health care.

CT enacts "keepsake ultrasound" ban

Josh Mercer at CatholicVote.com has this post about the new CT law banning the use of prenatal ultrasounds except for medical reasons and under the care of a licensed physician. The bill was touted as addressing the "keepsake ultrasound boutiques" that allow women to have high quality ultrasound imaging of their unborn child for early bonding, souvenirs, and other purposes. I read the text of the bill here, which was signed into law by Governor Rell two weeks ago. (Yes, I only heard about it after it was made law-- big surprise.)

Considering the apparent vagueness of the wording of the bill, I was concerned that this might affect the operations of crisis pregnancy centers in the state. I contacted the director of a local CareNet branch, who forwarded me this article from Lifenews.com:

National Pregnancy Center Group: Connecticut Ultrasound Bill Doesn't Affect Us

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 30, 2009

Hartford, CT (LifeNews.com) -- Now that Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell has signed a bill into law that would ban ultrasounds not done for medical reasons, some pro-life advocates are concerned about the effect it will have on pregnancy centers, which rely on ultrasounds to help women consider abortion alternatives.
Kristin Hansen, the vice president for communications at Care Net, a national organization with more than 1,100 affiliated centers, says the bill doesn't adversely affect its affiliates.
Hansen says abortion advocates sometimes wrongly believe that pregnancy centers perform ultrasound for non-medical reasons.
"Care Net pregnancy centers follow all FDA guidelines related to ultrasounds and all ultrasounds are performed by trained medical professionals under the direction of a licensed physician," she told LifeNews.com late Monday.
Hansen added, "We are not concerned about the Connecticut bill having a negative impact on Care Net pregnancy centers."
Unlike the "ultrasound boutiques" the bill is targeting, Care Net pregnancy centers are required to only perform ultrasounds for a medical reason.
"We require this of our centers because we insist that they uphold the best medical practices," she explained. "Not only has the FDA said that entertainment or keepsake ultrasounds may be dangerous to the unborn child, but a number of medical professional associations have done the same."
Hansen says most pregnancy centers perform a “limited ultrasound” to confirm a viable pregnancy and determine gestational age.
There are three types of ultrasounds as defined by the professional groups that meet the medical requirements: Targeted (intended to find a fetal problem when there is reason to believe there is a problem); Basic (no reason to suspect a problem, but performed to find any problems) and Limited (to determine viability or search for specific information -- i.e. gestational age, etc).
Hansen says Care Net has greater issues with legislation in New Jersey and New Mexico "which would potentially prevent centers from purchasing ultrasound equipment and from using trained nurses to perform ultrasounds."

I was also in contact with Linda Cochrane, executive director of Hopeline, who informed me that their organization, which currently has 3 locations in CT (with a fourth soon opening in Bridgeport) that offer pregancy resources, including ultrasounds for pregnancy diagnosis and checkup, is connected with CareNet and operates under the same guidelines.

I said to Ms. Cochrane that my concern is that, even though this law doesn't affect CPC's in the state immediately, this may be the first step in an ongoing strategy. She shared that concern and said that we must continue to fight, though, she said, "we do our fighting on our knees, and with our voices."

As the Lifenews.com article pointed out, other states already make it difficult to purchase or operate ultrasound equipment. What's to say that the next step in CT isn't to change the state guidelines of proper medical use of ultrasound equipment, as in, only medical facilities that will offer or refer for abortion services can be considered as adequate facilities?

While we can still breathe for now in CT, I do share Josh Mercer's concern that CPC's performing ultrasounds constitutes a target that pro-abortion advocates will seek to limit however possible to continue to undermine the truth that the child in the womb is a child, living and breathing, and responding to its environment.

In the meantime, check out Josh's post and drop him a line congratulating him on the baby in the pictured ultrasound--it's his!

Please visit CareNet's and Hopeline's websites to learn more about their services and offer your assistance if you can!

A full list of CPC's in CT that offer a range of services and referrals for women in crisis pregnancy can be found here.