So about that election...

The election wasn't the problem.  It was the symptom.  This election was the result of 50 years of crappy catechesis in the Church here in America. 


We have an administration that essentially put its boot on the Church, all its members, all its institutions, saying to it, "You know those things that you've been saying for 2,000 years are intrinsically wrong?  Yeah, well, not only do you have to be OK with it, but we're going to force you to be complicit in it and even pay for it or else face stiff penalties."  And half the Catholics who voted said, "Yeah, I'm OK with that."  Whatever one's opinion of abortion, contraception, or even of the Church, this was an opportunity to assert that religious liberty still means something in this country.  It is clear that in this country, religious liberty is a dead sentiment.

Who would support compulsory measures to force vegans to butcher, sell and eat meat?  How about forcing the Amish to fight in war?  No one would.  Because we recognize that religious freedom is sacred.  But in this day and age, all must be sacrificed to the "Sacrament of Abortion." 

I've been told many times that I can be very diplomatic.  I can be very pleasant and patient with people that I disagree with (especially when they extend the same courtesy to me).  While I disagree with all people that are pro-choice, I have a certain amount of patience for them, especially those of no faith.  Their view on abortion is not necessarily inconsistent with their (un)beliefs.  But I have no more patience for self-proclaimed "pro-choice Catholics."  There is no such animal.  One can be pro-choice, one can be Catholic, one can be neither.  But one cannot be both. 

I'm done dancing around that.  Intrinsically evil acts are always and everywhere wrong.  There is no prudential judgment.  The intentional killing of an innocent human being is always wrong.  Those who support it, always fall into one of two general categories: 1. those who deny the personhood of the baby in the womb or 2. those who have the audacity to take upon themselves the authority to declare that some lives are not worth living. 

Catholics who support intrinsically evil acts are committing mortal sin.  Mortal sin endangers one's soul to hell.  This is no longer the time for trying to lead people by persuasion, reason and fact.  Though we must never give that up entirely, we are immersed in a society that cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion, between reason and emotion, between history and bias. 

This is now the time to engage with, as Subvet said, lines clearly drawn.  Barak Obama was reelected because half the Catholics in this country are OK with intrinsic evil.  And no amount of volunteering at soup kitchens mitigates the intrinsic evil of murdering innocent babies in the womb to the tune of 55,000,000 since 1973.  No improvements in welfare programs erases the fact that we are killing the vulnerable. 

No appeals to the authority of Fr. Whitewash change the teaching authority of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on faith and morals. 

You can't be Catholic and pro-choice.  One cancels out the other.  So if you think you are one, this is the time to choose.  Pick one.  But stop saying you're both.  And God help you to make the right decision before it is too late.

So Let it be Written, So Let it be Done.

I've seen people on FB throw themselves into breathless fits of hysteria over the fact that Santorum believes that Griswold v CT was wrongly decided. It must be that people have so lost all understanding of how our government works that the opinion of the President has the weight of law. Guess what? It doesn't! I'll guarantee you that with a conservative president, four or eight years down the line, contraception would not be outlawed, nor would even abortion. Why? Because conservatives govern by the rule of law. We are a country with a government of laws, not of men. If those on the left would say that a conservative president COULD NOT outlaw the coverage of contaceptives under your own health insurance, then HOW COULD a liberal president mandate them for ANY price?

Yup, Planned Parenthood is in the business...

Federal money to Planned Parenthood increases abortions. While technically not paying for abortions, the money covers other expenses, thus making room for PP to kill more babies. And the more money that PP gets, the more babies are aborted. In fact, PP kills 97% of the babies that are carried through their doors.

H/T CMR

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.

Heard on Rush today...

by author unknown:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."

Here here!

Presidential halo sighting!

We've seen these before. Or is this Kabuki?

Note to Newsweek:

We are not here to make the President's job any harder or easier. We're not here for his sake at all.

The job of the President is to serve the American people in ways consistent with the Constitution.

And dismantling the American economy against the will of the people via overreaching legislation propped up with outright bribes and unfair deals is not consistent with the Constitution.

And they wonder why the Tea Parties have become so popular these days.

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

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)?

The International Olympic Committee

shows that it is full of racist, right-wing teabaggers.

The shell game of health care reform

Well, I promised Leticia last week that I would get my own post up here about the town hall meeting with my Congressman, Democrat Joe Courtney, on September 2nd.

I was fortunate enough to get in, arriving at about 5:40 for the 6:30 meeting, one of the last people allowed into the 519-capacity auditorium. The place was packed, and as they wouldn't allow standees, I found an empty seat near a man formerly of my parish, whom I was happy to sit next to.

I had a copy of the House bill on my laptop for reference if necessary, but I quickly realized that this would be impractical and jotted down my questions for Rep. Courtney. Unfortunately, the mic at the podium wasn't working properly, so the moderators would hold the clip-on mic for questioners then race down to the front so Joe could answer.

There were loud protests when the first announcement was made that the school needed us to be done by 8:30, so we were on a limited time frame. (I wonder what other event was planned there that evening?)

Anyway, the crowd, from my estimation was a little more evenly spread pro/con than was evident from the people milling about outside. Yes, it was a bit raucous at times, but most people at least tried to be respectful to let others ask their question, and when emotion did overtake, many cries of "Let him speak" did carry sway. (I'll note that the only person who did have to be escorted out was a heckler in support of the bill who continually yelled over others' criticism of the bill and the congressman.)

Not surprisingly, I wasn't satisfied with the answers that Joe gave. He continually found ways to make general statements that didn't address people's particular critiques or questions (especially regarding how this can be paid for). He stated about four times that he himself does not participate in the Congressional health care plan, a principled stance he plans to continue until everyone has access to the same care. (Hey, for all my disagreements with Mr. Courtney, I can respect that. However, that answer only goes so far, especially when people wanted to know how other members of Congress could vote for this legislation without being held to its consequences.)

I did not get to ask my questions, though not for lack of holding up my hand the entire time.

So here are a few of my questions and concerns:

1. President Obama has gone on a crusade to quash myths about the health care plan in Congress. He claims that one such fabrication is that abortion would not be covered by tax payer dollars. Mr. Courtney also made that claim on his local radio appearance two weeks ago delineating a system of payment credits and sequestering of funds, citing the Capps Amendment, which passed on July 30th. However, the Capps Amendment only makes those delineations in the section on the private Health Insurance Exchange, whereas the section on the public option only states that the public option shall provide abortions for which public funds are allowed and shall not be prevented or prohibited from covering abortions for which federal funds are not allowed. Nope, no disconnect here.

2. As I read through the text of the bill (I had 16 hours to kill when I missed my flight at O'Hare) I was struck by the amount of authority that the Congress would essentially be ceding--in our name-- to the Administration. By this plan, the rules that govern the health care of every man, woman and child in the United States would be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That means that the decisions that most intimately affect everyone would henceforth be political. Every presidential election from now until the end of the Republic would be about what's in "my health care." Not the economy, not national security, not education. Don't like your health care plan? Wait four years and elect a new president.

For all those in support of this legislation, I can't help but wonder if they would have given this much authority to President Bush?

3. My congressman has very clearly read the bill (another point for which I have to give him at least that credit). However, many members of Congress had not until recently, and it's not certain that they all have read it yet. This bill would restructure one sixth of the American economy, and if President Obama and Speaker Pelosi had their way, this bill would have been passed a month ago before Congress went on August recess, before the American people could have read the bill. Is this responsible?

4. Courtney side-stepped another question about the path to single-payer health care by stating that this bill is not single payer health care and that such a plan would have zero chance of passing now. Yet that is not the concern here, Joe. We can see that it doesn't yet create a single-payer mandate, but Barney Franks is on record admitting that if we are to get to a single-payer structure, the public option is the best way to get there.

Then, after hearing President Obama's campaign speech before both houses tonight, another thought crossed my mind. He said that the public option would have to be self-sufficient, operating only on the premiums it collects. And then I got to thinking, if the public option is for those who cannot get health care because they either have pre-existing conditions or they cannot afford it, how will they be able to afford the premiums on the public option unless it is taxpayer subsidized? (Let that sink in, then, and see question 1 above.)

And if the Health Insurance Exchange will impose rules on private companies that forbid them from denying coverage or dropping people, why would the public option be necessary at all? A cheaper alternative? How then, will it stay viable as a system if it is collecting lower premiums?

Obama made it clear that everyone will have to purchase (or in the case of employers, provide) health insurance or they will be taxed. Two questions: 1. If an individual decides not to buy health insurance and is fined/taxed, does that tax automatically enroll him in the public option or does he still have to buy insurance now on top of that? 2. If a company drops insurance benefits for employees and is fined/taxed, will the fine be much greater than the premiums it currently pays? Otherwise, any business owner will be calculating the premium amount and administrative costs; suffering the tax and letting all the employees get dumped into the public option might be a wise business decision. (Is this the ultimate goal? Is the public option the mechanism for eventually getting everyone into a single infrastructure of health care?)

Keep watching the shell. This game isn't over yet.

Truth or Fiction?

Okay, here's a tip for President Obama.

When you want to sell snake oil to the American public, and someone in the crowd, whose vocation is to give witness to the truth, points out that it's snake oil, don't accuse him of lying, especially when that person is citing the documents that proves he's right.

Did I mention that I've always liked Cardinal Rigali?

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.

Speaking of fishy emails

...like mine or anyone else's, some questions still remain.

Who was receiving the emails?
How many staff had access to them?
What was the protocol for sifting which emails should be addressed?
Was personal information expunged? (Correspondence with the White House is to be retained in the Archives unaltered)
What was the plan for addressing "misconceptions"?
Would the authors of such "misconceptions" be contacted directly or would the issues be referred to by administration staff on weekend talk shows, for instance?
Some people got letters from David Axelrod to clear up misconceptions. I outed myself and have received diddly squat for a response. What gives?

Maybe Mr. Gibbs will clarify all that for us. Here's to holding my breath.

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."

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.

Cap and Trade means...

* that I should start making candles
* that we should bring ice down from Canada this winter and pack it in sawdust for the summer
* that I should move the whole fam-damily into the back room at work so I can afford to travel to my job
* that welfare will be expanded to include utility bills for many more Americans, which will then mean also...
* that the government will not only tell utility companies how much tax they have to pay to operate, but how much they can charge for services, which will mean profit margins untenable for private companies, which means also...
* that it's only a matter of time until the government takes over utilities as well
* that the current number of people in this country cannot be sustained if our utility infrastructure and economy is turned back to 1800's levels, so expect child quotas


You think I'm crazy, don't you?
But I'm right.

Catching up

Well, Exultet has been collecting dust for some time, as Big Brother may or may not have noticed. Work has been busy, I've been finishing getting the house ready to put on the market, looking for a nighttime job, preparing for my friend's bachelor party and wedding, in which I was an usher, my son was ring bearer, and my lovely (and very talented wife) was vocalist and music director. I'm just now catching my breath before the Canada family reunion coming up and hopefully moving! Whew!Check out Fric (founding member of Fric, Frac and Fred) showing off the bling for the bride and groom. Catch phrase of the day while wearing tuxes: "Totally wicked!"

Because of all this, I don't have a lot of time to research all the details, but I wanted to quick blog some things that have caught my attention over the last few weeks.

This is a bit old, but here's a bit of news that got little coverage and no notice, around here, anyway. CT joins other states in awarding its electoral votes, not to the winner of the state, but to the winner of the national popular vote. Message to all: only New York, California, Texas, Florida, Massachusetts and Ohio are important.

Nancy Pelosi's flailing changing gasping story regarding the CIA briefings about waterboarding are as disingenuous as Hilary Clinton's implication that General Petraus lied to the Senate regarding conditions in Iraq. Here's the hint: if you are in a position of authority and you think a subordinate is lying to you, you fire them (or make a big stink for the President to do so). Otherwise, no one believes you.

And don't forget all those of you who swore to me that Obama really was pro-life and that he would work to reduce abortions. Oh, wait, that's not right. Looks like he lied to you, too.