The US without Catholic health care?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  I fervently pray that Obama’s many promises to pass the Freedom of Choice Act to Planned Parenthood and the far-left pro-abortion people is as genuine as his campaign public funding promises.  I hope that it never comes to pass.  Millions of lives depend on it, and that is no exaggeration. 

But here it is, from the horse’s mouth (warning, I threw up in my mouth a little bit when I read this): Obama statement on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Obama promises to sign FOCA

From Hot Air:

“Melinda Henneberger looks at the threat the Freedom of Choice Act poses to Catholic health-care centers that want no part of abortion, and concludes that the legislation would probably strip them of their opt-out for conscience.  Henneberger believes that the bishops mean exactly what they say when warning that they will close the doors on every facility rather than be forced to perform abortions — and wonders how the Obama administration plans to replace a third of all hospitals in the nation?

Would Congress pass FOCA?  If the Republicans hold onto their seats in Minnesota and Georgia, they’ll have enough Senators to filibuster it, but Henneberger wonders if Obama would have enough votes to pass the bill on straight majorities.  Once the bill’s sweeping nature becomes known, she believes that only the hard-Left Representatives and Senators would back the bill, leaving FOCA to die quietly as it has in every session of Congress for the last 15 years it’s been proposed.

Obama pledged to make FOCA his highest priority, though, and his appointment of Emily’s List spokesperson Ellen Moran as his communications director sent a message that he intends to pursue it.  Henneberger believes that any attempt to force FOCA through Congress will “reignite the culture war he so deftly sidestepped throughout this campaign,” as well as make fools out of pro-Obama Catholics like Douglas Kmiec.  I don’t see Obama backing away from his pledge to make Planned Parenthood’s dreams come true, and I hope that Henneberger’s correct about Congress stopping those plans.” 

That’s why it’s so important for Norm Coleman to prevail in Minnesota and for Saxby Chambliss to prevail in Georgia against pro-abortion politicians Al Franken and Jim Martin.  If the Democrats gain a 60 seat, fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate, FOCA is looking like a very scary reality in the forthcoming Obama administration.

Media malpractice

Many have heard about or seen the poll conducted of Obama voters as they left the polling place on YouTube or other sources; Zogby conducted a similar poll.  See the results here.  The poll showcased a complete inability by Obama voters to answer basic questions, like “Who controls Congress?” ”Who is Nancy Pelosi?” and ”Who is Harry Reid?” but interestingly knew all about Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter and Palin’s wardrobe budget.  Very unflattering for liberals.  But, who needs facts when “hope and change” are on the ballot?  You can read more about the poll here.   

The conclusion being drawn by the organizer of the poll, John Zeigler, is that media completely failed to inform the general populace of relevant issues regarding both candidates during the election.  Zeigler has also produced a web video entitled “How Obama Got Elected.”  You really have to see it. 

Fair-minded people on the left and right are admitting the same; the media helped get Obama elected by ignoring numerous relevant details about Obama and spending an inordinate amount of time dragging Palin (and McCain) through the mud at every opportunity.  I’m not saying that each and every citizen is not ultimately responsible for doing his own thorough research about candidates and their policies, but the media previously always served as the objective and fair means of helping the citizenry be informed. 

While many moderate Republicans and various turncoat “conservative” columnists like Kathleen ”I scream my own name in bed” Parker are advocating getting rid of the social conservatives to reinvigorate the GOP, it’s interesting to note that many of these social conservatives simply stayed at home on Election day because of the moderate Republican on the ticket.  Conservative principles did NOT lose in this election; they were not on the ballot. (Other than Sarah Palin.  How many voters voted FOR Palin, or simply AGAINST Obama?  Here’s one of them.) 

The media, for the most part, completely ignored talking about social issues.  Yes, the economy was front and center, but there was still reluctance to bring up issues like abortion.  Obama’s abortion record is atrocious, and the media knows it; thus we heard little about it.  I think it’s a large part of why Obama still garnered roughly half of the “pro-life” Catholic vote.  Too many Catholics simply were uninformed of the radicalism of Obama’s abortion record.  Here is an excellent short article about this from Fr. Euteneuer at Human Life International. 

That, and the “social justice” concerned Catholics chose simply to ignore his abortion record while continually choosing to ignore facts for feelings…and hope…and change.  I can already see a schism in the Catholic ranks between the social justice Catholics and the pro-life Catholics.  And unfortunately for the social justice Catholics, the Catholic hierarchy is not on their side.  The right to life is basic and foundational, and without it, it renders social justice moot, a point that is being heavily emphasized by numerous US Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, priests, and the Pope himself.  (I think one should keep in mind, too, that many self-described Catholics use the term in more of a cultural sense; i.e., the self-identified Jewish atheist.) 

Besides, define “social justice.”  Catholics who voted for Obama somehow feel that Obama and/or Democrats are better with social justice issues.  I wholeheartedly disagree, which I will elaborate upon in another post.  Socialism does not equal social justice.  Neither does abortion at all costs and for any reason.  Abortions is arguably the antithesis of social justice. 

Meanwhile, Obama is selecting the most anti-life, anti-family radicals he can for his administration, and just announced a vocal pro-abortion leader, Ellen Moran, as his communications director.  He has his eye on overturning Bush’s ban on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and the Mexico City policy, which prohibits the use of federal funds to promote abortions abroad.  And the frightful specter of FOCA casts a manacing shadow over it all. 

Obviously, many Catholics were simply uniformed about Obama’s very pro-abortion predilections, just like the general populace.  It is how (you’ll recall from an earlier post) the sweet old lady next to me in mass whispered, “I still don’t know who to vote for” after the homily about the importance of not voting for a pro-abortion candidate.  She simply didn’t know who was the pro-life candidate.  The mainstream media (probably the only source of news this lady has) was completely silent about informing the electorate the candidates’ stands on abortion.

Stay informed.  Let’s not let history repeat itself in four years.

Turkey week

Turkey Week is upon us, and I find myself suddenly extremely busy.  I fear my blog will suffer in consequence.  But do not lose heart, faithful readers:  I shall attempt to devote a few minutes here and there between the abundance of laundry, cooking, and cleaning that has cropped up on my ever-lengthening to-do list. 

The Christmas lights still have not been hung; Linus and I instead are going to make Chocolate Mint Sticks while Eliza sleeps.  When cooking with a four year old, one must set aside three times the amount of time needed to perform such a task alone.  It will no doubt be interesting. 

I do want to leave a link to a great article I recently read.  Social conservatives have been taking a beating lately, and American Thinker’s Randall Hoven provides a very commendable defense of those of us who still think social conservative=common sense.  Here it is:  A Libertarian Defense of Social Conservatism

Happy reading!

Did I read that right?

The audacity of President Bush, seeking to protect the right of medical doctors and nurses to refuse to peform or participate in performing abortions. 

From Lifesitenews.com (my comments italicized):

Bush Pushes Ahead with Regulations to Protect Doctors’ Conscience Rights

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON D.C., November 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In spite of pro-abortion anger and the looming pro-abortion Obama administration, President Bush is poised to sign regulations that will help protect the rights of doctors and nurses to refuse to perform abortions on moral or religious grounds.

The regulations will enforce existing federal law that requires taxpayer-funded medical institutions not to discriminate against medical personnel who conscientiously object to performing abortions or assisting “in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity,” including the distribution of abortifacient contraceptives. 

Pro-life advocates have hailed the regulations as a much-needed reminder to medical establishments of their employee’s religious rights under the Constitution. In recent years pro-life doctors frequently claim to have been discriminated against for refusing to perform procedures that went against their consciences.

Abortion supporters, however, continue to wage war against the regulations, denouncing them as a threat to women’s access to abortion.  How, exactly?  I’m guessing the doctors who would benefit from this legislation weren’t performing abortions to begin with, anyway.

Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced legislation Thursday to halt the regulations, accusing President Bush of “again putting ideology first” in a “last-minute attempt to undermine women’s health care.”  Ideology first?  Are you kidding me?  How is this putting ideology first?  I think it is just an adherence to the Constitutional right to religious freedom.  Undermine women’s health care?  Abortion has devastating physical and emotional effects on women.  But, I suppose if  one is a Democrat politician, one must blindly bow to the sacrament of abortion if one wants to retain office, all documentable facts aside.  Talk about ideology.   The legislation cites a directive from White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolton that discourages the submission of regulation proposals late in an administration.

Though the proposed regulations do not change federal law, both abortion groups and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency assigned to enforce such regulations, complain that they are redundant and will result in a reduction of abortions.  Um, WHAT?!?!  Did I actually just read that correctly?  I thought a reduction in abortions was a GOOD thing, no matter where one stands on the abortion debate.  I’m sorry, I think my head just exploded due to the inability to process that asinine statement.

“It’s unconscionable that the Bush administration, while promising a smooth transition, would take a final opportunity to politicize women’s health,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards. Plus, it would really undermine your bottom line if abortions were reduced, eh, Cecile?   Performing abortions is a profitable venture.  Actually, politicizing women’s health has generally been the job of the liberal left.  Besides, I think this debate transcends “women’s health.” (Although, abortion has been proven devastating on women’s bodies.)  Abortion is not necessarily easy on pre-born babies, either.  I don’t favor a smooth transition into government-coerced infanticide, sorry.  See BAIPA, Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which Obama voted against four times.  Not a good indicator that he’s going to forget about his promise to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.    

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt sponsored and vigorously defended the regulations throughout the verification process.

“Federal law is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable,” Leavitt told the New York Times. 

The religious and civil rights coalition Catholic League released a statement urging President Bush to “move with dispatch” on the regulations, before the Obama administration can snuff them out.  Which he will do should he go forward with the Freedom of Choice Act.  Remember conscientious objection is fine—as long as it’s liberals doing it. 

Catholic League President Bill Donohue noted that the religious rights of Catholic hospitals were soon to be gravely threatened by the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make it illegal for a doctor to refuse to kill an unborn child.  Take a moment to let that sink in.  FOCA would equire that even Catholic hospitals, of which there are many, would be required to perform abortions.  US Bishops have warned that such actions would result in their having to close down Catholic hospitals.  That’s a lot of lost jobs and care for the poor.   Passing regulations as a last stand for religious rights, says Donohue, will help set up the case against Obama’s extreme agenda against life and the civil right to conscientious objection.

“If Obama wants to undo them, it will set up a confrontation he will surely regret,” Donohue stated.  Any liberal and/or pro-abortion people perhaps reading this, you who are so open-minded and tolerant of opposing viewpoints (I’m really trying to type with a straight face here):  Would you really support any type of legislation that would FORCE someone to act against his or her conscience?  Really?  If the answer is yes, I say, “How intolerant and oppressive of you.”  If the answer is no, then you might want to reconsider voicing your support for Obama and his quest for such legislation. 

Victory in Iraq Day

 

Today, November 22, is now declared VI Day.  The US has succeeded in its honorable endeavor to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.  As many people were actively rooting for our defeat in Iraq, including a large portion of the press, online forums across the world are instead participating in this virtual celebration of the continued source of good that the US is to the world. 

We honor and thank all in the military who have courageously fought for the principles of freedom.

Ritual turkey slaughter in Wasilla!

Let the shrieking, hysterical outrage of the left begin!

Breaking news:  After pardoning a turkey, Sarah Palin was interviewed while a turkey farmer went on with his business of butchering them in the background, to the utter horror of PETA and liberals everywhere.  The video has been played on all the various media outlets, to the consternation or hilarity of a variety of viewers.  Reactions range from “So, why is this a story?” to “Shocking video of turkeys being slaughtered!”   I’ve been cruising around guaging reactions, and they’re hilarious.  I have to admit, David’s and my reaction upon seeing the interview clip was of the former variety; butchering animals before eating them is kind of the way things work in the food business.  I realize that the turkey I cook for Thanksgiving didn’t just grow out of the ground trussed up in shrink wrap.  But we chuckled, too, because the worker also appeared unsure of whether or not he was in the shot, and apparently unsure of whether or not to proceed.  Of course, he ultimately decides to go forward with putting the turkey into what some hysterical liberal called the “cone of death.”  (You can see the video here.)

Really, sometimes you’ve just got to laugh.

Of course, being a person with very pro-life sensibilities, I find the consummate horror being expressed at the “bloody, seeping gore” of the turkey butchering almost unreal, given the fact that we abort 4,000 human babies per day in the US by dismemberment, chemical burns, or skull puncturing, and many of these same individuals do not bat an eye at it.  It is, after all, “between a woman and her doctor.”  For many, apparently, it’s “Save the turkeys, kill the babies.”

The insane rage being directed at Palin for her apparent nonchalance about the turkey butchering behind her, her ”disregard for the life of the turkeys” is…funny?  Sad?  Pathetic?  All of the above?  I have to conclude that there is a blindness there, a mental disconnect, to call a woman anti-life who chose to do what 90% of women don’t do these days:  bring to term a baby with Down Syndrome and welcome it with loving arms.

UPDATE  The New York Times has issued an editorial decrying the “execution” of the turkeys in the Sarah Palin turkey pardon interview.  Yes, I double-checked; the story isn’t from The Onion.  What else are we to expect of the Times, though?  (via Malkin):

November 21, 2008, 5:17 pm
A Sarah Palin Thanksgiving
By The Editorial Board

“We’ve differed with Sarah Palin a great deal on substance. We don’t agree with her hardline approach to the Iraq War, her harsh anti-government rhetoric, and her style of negative campaigning.

But we also worry a bit about, how should we put it, the persona she has brought with her to national politics. We did not care at all for the swipe she took against community organizers at the Republican National Convention.

And then there’s this. You don’t have to be a huge animal lover to question why Governor Palin chose to be interviewed — while issuing a traditional seasonal pardon of a turkey — while turkeys were being executed in the background.”

The poor girly-men can’t handle a strong conservative female.  They need their blankies.

Christmas electrical lighting: The scourge of the season

It’s a chilly 12 degrees this morning, and “Jack Frost” visited overnight.  Our corn stove is doing its job, though, and I love seeing the merry flames from the kitchen table as I type. 

The other day I made up my mind to get out the Christmas lights, and attempt to erect some sort of holiday display outside (if we have a warmer day, that is.)  And, as happens every year, I discovered upon opening the box the strands that I had so meticulously packed last year had inexplicably entangled upon sitting immobile on the shelf for 11 months.  This is one of life’s Great Mysteries.  That and the sneaking fear of making the wrong move somehow and getting the things up, only to discover that only half the strand works.  My mom, always a very patient person, would calmly and methodically twist each one should this unfortunate thing occur.  The effect of half-strand burnout on me is somewhat different, I confess, usually involving visible steam emanating from my ears and a series of choice, voluble expletives issuing from my mouth.  I’m convinced that no saint ever hung Christmas lights.  

I’m sure there are any number of accounts of this trying activity posted in blogs across the web; the hanging of Christmas lights is a misery that loves company, it seems.  But I have not yet crossed over to Scroogedom (as has my husband, who flatly refuses to assist in the task).  I rarely decorate for any holiday or season, but Christmas is special and an exception. 

So if there’s one good thing about the frigid outdoor temperature, it’s that it has successfully delayed this self-flagellation for the present time.

Today marks a week of being done with harvest.  Just in time for the insanity that is Deer Season, where orange-clad, rifle-bearing men take to their pickups and tear madly around the countryside—sometimes in herds and sometimes solo—in quest of the elusive ”thirty point buck.”  None has been sighted thus far. 

Harvest 2008, being now in the history books, means that David is here for the duration of the evening.  This is good and bad.  It’s bad in that we’re both here to annoy one another at will, but good in the sense that we have a sympathetic ally in relation to the pent-up energy that is a four and almost-two year old.  The overzealousness of the children leads to many offhand remarks on our part, such as “Could you hand me a butterknife and a revolver, honey?” and gestures such as the index finger throat slice.  It’s a cross, at times, but the kids do seem to provide an equal amount of joy as well. 

For example, I made hot roast beef sandwiches for lunch the other day.  Linus, being the typical small child skeptical of any food that has the potential of being wholesome or healthy, remarked in complete seriousness to David as he sat down with a nice, big pile of roast beef:  “Hey, Dad.  Is that poop?” 

That one will probably go in the baby book.  All part of the thankless, hilarious task of being a mother.

Our own Gethsemane

Hope and change.

Via Gateway Pundit:  US Bishop compares America’s future with Obama to Jesus’ agony in the garden of Gethsemane

The Return of Scipio has more on the Obama’s war on God and the Catholic Church’s war on Obama:

McCain thinks that Barack Obama is “a decent and honorable man” but the Vatican knows differently. A “decent and honorable man” would not support legislation that refused aid to a baby who survived a failed abortion, thus allowing the child to perish—to put the child to death. A “decent and honorable man” would not support abortion in the first place. Indeed, is there anything—anything at all—in the life of Obama that could possibly be described as “decent and honorable”?

More than 90 percent of blacks voted for a man who supports the murder of half of all conceived black children.

I apologize for the quasi-post, but I have a meeting at my house this morning and lunch to prepare.  More later.

“A nation that kills its children has no future.” –Mother Theresa

Victory in Iraq!

I am participating in the virtual ticker-tape parade for our brave soldiers in declaration and celebration of our victory in Iraq. 

From here on, November 22, this coming Saturday, will be known as VI Day, where the world will remember the honorable efforts of our military in bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.  If you have a blog and would like to participate, go here for information.

Why the virtual declaration? 

(from the host site linked above):  What more indication do you need? An announcement from the outgoing Bush administration? It’s not gonna happen. An announcement from the incoming Obama administration? That’s really not gonna happen. A declaration of victory by the media? Please. Don’t make me laugh. A concession of surrender by what few remaining insurgents remain in hiding? Forget about it.

By every measure, The United States and coalition forces have conclusively defeated all enemies in Iraq, pacified the country, deposed the previous regime, successfully helped to establish a new functioning democratic government, and suppressed any lingering insurgencies. The war has come to an end. And we won.

The moment has come to acknowledge the obvious. To overtly declare a fact that has already been true for quite some time now. Let me repeat:  We have won the war in Iraq!

The only reason that the war has not been declared “over” is that the media, which was generally opposed to the war and opposed to any of President Bush’s policies, doesn’t want to give him and his supporters the satisfaction of having been right. The media wants U.S. troops to return home, but only on condition that they do so with their tails between their legs in defeat — not as victorious liberators, which would invalidate five years of subtle and not-so-subtle anti-war propaganda on the part of the left-leaning media. The Bush administration for its part has not declared victory for two probable reasons: first, because they fear that by so doing they would only increase the call by the media and liberal Democrats to “bring the troops home now”; and also by so doing they might invite some last-ditch spectacular terror attack by the few remaining jihadists in order to embarrass the administration. And the incoming Obama administration will certainly never announce victory, since Obama spent over a year campaigning for the Democratic primary as the anti-war candidate. So both sides refuse to say the war is over. Even though it is, in fact, over.

And, lastly, since we never see or hear of the abundant good that our presence in Iraq has procured, some inspirational photos in celebration of our endeavors.

God bless the troops.

   

Democracy speaks…

….or not. 

Often, I get discouraged by the screaming silence that is met by what should be huge nightly news stories, and I feel it my duty to relay to you, dear readers, what is so glaringly absent from the media.

This morning I seem to be reading a lot about election fraud in various states, including Georgia, Kentucky, and of course, Minnesota, where Soros/Franken are in the process of stealing away Norm Coleman’s Senate seat.

Aside from election fraud, which I believe is in dire need of reform, as in “Let’s bring Election DAY back, not Election MONTH or Election MONTHS”), there’s another interesting phenomenon going on as we speak.

That would be the peace-loving, tolerant left in California, the gay Proposition 8 protesters busy roughing up the elderly, sending white powdery subtances to churches, stomping on crosses, and blacklisting anyone who exercised their American rights in a democracy by voting for Proposition 8, the traditional marriage initiative.  I swear, should Proposition 8 have failed, and the reverse were occurring, there would be some heavy-handed action by someone, probably that most honorable of institutions, the ACLU. 

Michelle Malkin writes:

“Over the past two weeks, anti-Prop. 8 organizers have targeted Mormon, Catholic, and evangelical churches. Sentiments like this one, found on the anti-Prop.8 website “JoeMyGod,” are common across the left-wing blogosphere: “Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers.” Thousands of gay-rights demonstrators stood in front of the Mormon temple in Los Angeles shouting “Mormon scum.” The Mormon headquarters in Salt Lake City received threatening letters containing an unidentified powder. Religious-bashing protesters filled with hate decried the “hate” at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif. Vandals defaced the Calvary Chapel in Chino Hills, Calif., because church members had collected Prop. 8 petitions. One worshiper’s car was keyed with the slogans “Gay sex is love” and “SEX;” another car’s antenna and windshield wipers were broken.

In Carlsbad, Calif., a man was charged with punching his elderly neighbors over their pro-Prop. 8 signs. In Palm Springs, a videographer filmed unhinged anti-Prop. 8 marchers who yanked a large cross from the hands of 69-year-old Phyllis Burgess and stomped on it.”

For some reason, yesterday’s Too Good page post Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist comes to mind. 

Dennis Prager hits on this in his most recent column, Is Gay the New Black?

“The vast majority of Americans, including those who oppose same-sex marriage, know that the homosexual is created in God’s image every bit as much as is the heterosexual; and acknowledge that the gay man or woman has a right to love whom he or she wants and that commitment has the right to be given legal protections.

But radically redefining the most important institution in the life of a civilization; and routinely labeling as the moral equivalent of racists every individual who does not want children regularly asked whether they will marry a boy or a girl when grown up, and who rightly fears that every traditional religious community will be labeled as a hate group — these are not commensurate with civil rights.”

And that really is the crux of the matter:  Anyone who dares to uphold traditional marriage is deemed “hateful.”  What, logically, is the next step for these “hateful” institutions?  Radical leftist judges acting out their retribution via heavy-handed silencing tactics?  Free speech and freedom of religion only go so far anymore, it seems.  I generally try not to be an alarmist, but I can’t help but see the writing on the wall, here. 

I’m sure I will be bombarded by negative—dare I say “hateful”?—comments after this post, who will scream the usual, “Traditional marriage isn’t so great, look at the high divorce rate,” and such.  But it all goes back to the faulty insistence that is so prevalent today:  No one can seek to stand up for morality in a world filled with moral relativists, especially if THEY ARE NOT PERFECT THEMSELVES.  No one can say, “That’s not right,” because they will be met with, ”Well, you’re not so perfect” type responses.  Well, in that case, nothing could ever be judged as right or wrong, because no one is perfect.  Just as no one can credibly justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.  It’s a sticky little situation, but I think it’s at the heart of every single social problem imaginable today.

Feminine Genius says it best:

“One might keep in mind that no action that is religiously motivated will be accurately viewed in the press. Overall, many make the claim that they just don’t get it. Those who promote ‘truth’ are usually interpreted as bullies or moralists who love controlling others. Those who like spiritual mushiness are seen, not as lukewarm vacillators, but as heroes, despite the fact that several truths cannot be simultaneously true. And most curiously, those who are motivated by an internal sense of jihad are hidden from view, or only commented on as having curious unnamed issues.”