Saturday, July 31, 2010

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: Being Remembered on the Silver Screen in a New Documentary

There is a documentary film coming out that tells the life story of Archbishop Fulton Sheen. The film is called "Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: Servant of All".

"Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: Servant of All" is a one-hour documentary that tells the story of Sheen and the tremendous impact he had on individuals, the Catholic community, the American public, and the world. Divided into five main sections, the film uses still images, video footage and interviews with those who knew Sheen to tell the story of this remarkable man, gifted teacher, missionary, priest, and loyal son of the Church.

Learning. Tells the story of Sheen’s early years, from birth to ordination, including his early academic and debating successes, which set the stage for his accomplishments to come. The section ends with his ordination and lifelong commitment to the Holy Hour and the Eucharist.

Teaching. Begins with his return to Peoria, Ill., and his service as a parish priest. Covers his years as a professor and author, the beginnings of his missionary focus as he traveled the world, and the start of his media career with the Catholic Hour radio show.

Preaching. Tells the story of Sheen as director of the Propagation of the Faith and ends with his move to Rochester, N.Y. This section also focuses on the impact of his television show, and his humility in the face of unprecedented popularity. Viewers learn how his speaking style and power to communicate impacted others, from individuals to the world.

Giving. Covers his focus on giving — what he did with his incredible wealth from royalties and donations and his dedication to giving both money and time to the less fortunate. Also discusses the impact of his writings and his participation in Vatican II.

Suffering. Tells the story of Sheen’s illness, loss of popularity and his reaction to a changing world. Also focuses on his final push to promote the priesthood, his dwindling health and the culmination of his life with an embrace by the Pope.

Here is the trailer:

From CNA: Gaining a reputation as both a scholar and a man of God from a young age, Archbishop Sheen committed to praying a daily Holy Hour before the Eucharist after he was ordained a priest in 1919. It was a practice that he maintained for the remaining 60 years of his life, and it was to this daily Holy Hour that he attributed his success in spreading the Gospel.

By age 30, Archbishop Sheen was a well-recognized Catholic scholar, with degrees from multiple universities in America and Europe. He taught at Catholic University of America, where students would flood his classroom, even sitting on radiators to hear his lectures.

Gaining recognition as a speaker, the archbishop traveled the globe, drawing crowds of up to 10,000 with his charismatic personality and powerful message. “You felt that one of the Apostles was right there in front of you speaking,” said one listener.

In 1930, Archbishop Sheen was asked to take part in a weekly radio broadcast called “The Catholic Hour.” His popularity soared, and shortly after being appointed Auxiliary Bishop of New York in 1951, he began his “Life is Worth Living” television program.

Soon, 30 million Americans were tuning in weekly to see Archbishop Sheen, who presented his message with a charming combination of humor and wit. He was awarded an Emmy after his first season on the air, becoming the only religious broadcaster ever to do so.

Despite his great success in radio and television, the archbishop remained humble and generous. He donated the money from his show, as well as the many contributions he received, to the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, of which he had been named director.

Archbishop Sheen spoke at the Second Vatican Council on the role of the Church in caring for the poor and needy of the world. At the council, he also attracted the attention of the future Pope John Paul II, who learned English by listening to his shows.

In the following years, Archbishop Sheen began to lose popularity as he publicly supported civil rights and criticized the Vietnam War. In addition, some people saw him as too traditional after Vatican II.

In 1966, he was appointed Bishop of Rochester, a position which he filled for three years before retiring at the age of 74. For the remainder of his life, he worked vigorously to strengthen and promote the priesthood. His health gradually declined, and he underwent open heart surgery.

Archbishop Sheen passed away on December 9, 1979. His body was found before the Eucharist in his private chapel.

The cause for Archbishop Sheen's beatification and canonization was opened in 2002. The archbishop currently holds the title of Servant of God, while the Church continues to examine his life and works, including the 66 books he wrote during his life.

“Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen: Servant of All” will be released on DVD to the general public during the 2010 holiday season.

You can buy the dvd here.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Rep. Anthony Weiner Goes Bazerk on House Floor

Here is another instance where Weiner goes kinda nuts on the House floor:

If you want to view even more of  Rep.Weiner's nuttiness you can see more evidence here.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Elton John Rocks!!

First, Elton John played at Rush Limbaugh's wedding and now he has spoken out and admonished those musicians who are boycotting Arizona because of their new immigration law.  WAY TO GO,  ELTON!!

From Fox News:

Never one to back out of a performance to make a statement, music icon Elton John offered some choice words for his fellow musicians who choose to boycott Arizona over the SB 1070 immigration law.

According to the Arizona Daily Star, while performing at his sold-out concert at the Tucson Arena, he said:

"We are all very pleased to be playing in Arizona. I have read that some of the artists won't come here. They are f***wits! Let's face it: I still play in California, and as a gay man I have no legal rights whatsoever. So what's the (expletive) with these people?"

John is known for not giving into outside pressures when it comes to playing concerts in politically charged environments.

Last month, he ignored calls for a boycott of Israel, playing in Tel Aviv amid debates about an aid flotilla.

Here is more on his decision to play in Israel.

"Musicians spread love and peace, and bring people together. That's what we do," he said of artists like Elvis Costello and Santana, who canceled performances in Israel. "We don't cherry-pick our conscience."

Elton John is the bomb!!! He rocks!!!  Elton John is a classy guy.  He can disagree with your position and still be respectful of you at the same time.

This is one of my favorite Elton John's songs. Enjoy!!

Monday, July 26, 2010

The Consequences of the NOT so Affordable "Affordable Care Act"

By James A. Bacon:

Josh Dent is an early victim of Obamacare. The lanky, shaven-headed machine operator likes the medical insurance plan his employer, Acorn Signs, provides him. But under the newly enacted Affordable Care Act, his insurance policy will get less affordable. A provision in the law is putting his insurance company out of business, and whatever replaces Mr. Dent's current policy will likely be much more expensive.

The way the 29-year-old sees it, Acorn Signs will have to cut benefits or cut pay. One way or another, he figures, the switch to a new insurer will cost him.

Steve Gillispie, Acorn's president, is distressed by this unexpected development. A year and a half ago, he was facing premiums of $150,000 from an established insurer, up from $80,000 just three years before. Then along came Richmond, Va.-based nHealth. The start-up company, launched with the mission of making consumer-driven health care a reality, rescued him with a plan that kept premiums below $90,000 yearly. The plan insured his 35 employees against hospital expenses, created a $1,500 deductible for doctors' fees and set up health savings accounts (HSAs) for employees to pay for what the health plan did not. "For most employees," Mr. Gillispie says, "it netted out money in the pocket."

Lower insurance charges helped Acorn survive the recession without laying off any of its employees or cutting their compensation. Going back hat in hand to one of the dominant insurers in town, Mr. Gillispie fears, will add tens of thousands of dollars to his cost structure. Profit margins are tight in this slow-growth economy, but he hates to pass on the higher insurance costs to his employees, many of whom are paid $14 to $16 an hour. "Most of these people are living hand to mouth as it is," he says. He still does not know what he will do.

Such is the unintended consequence of Obamacare, which overhauled the health care industry with the goal of making medical insurance more affordable and accessible to all. The provision that is causing Acorn Signs so much heartache is the so-called 80/20 rule, which requires all insurance plans to pay out at least 80 percent of premiums in benefits. The goal behind the rule is to punish insurers that let administrative expenses get out of hand. In practice, the law punishes innovative, entrepreneurial companies like nHealth that kept premiums low.

The company ran afoul of the 80/20 rule by charging premiums that were so low that the administrative expenses looked high by comparison. Alan Slabaugh, a benefits specialist who brokers the policy, explains the problem this way, using very rough numbers: If a traditional insurer bills $500 monthly per employee, paying out $400 in benefits and charging $100 to administration, its administrative ratio is 20 percent - acceptable under the 80/20 rule. NHealth keeps premiums low by using HSAs to incentivize employees to reduce their spending - buying generic drugs, for instance, and shopping around for cheaper pharmacies - and by showing clients how to self-insure for physicians' fees. If nHealth charges superlow premiums of $300 per month, paying $200 in benefits and keeping $100 for administrative expenses, its administrative ratio would be 33 percent - thus failing the Obamacare test and triggering penalties.

In its short existence, nHealth passed the market test with flying colors, signing up 128 clients across Virginia. However, the fast-growth company was still burning cash when Obamacare passed, and management wasn't expecting to be profitable for several years. The 80/20 rule attacked the company's business model and pushed the break-even point out another year or more. Given continued uncertainties about how the regulations would be written, the company notified clients in June that the board had decided to shut down the company; it would honor all existing contracts but not renew them.

About 2,500 Virginia employees are the losers. Other insurers in the Richmond marketplace offer HSAs, Mr. Slabaugh says, but none is as inexpensive as nHealth's. Workers will wind up paying more for insurance - assuming their employers even can afford to continue providing insurance at the rates the big insurers charge. Even non-customers pay a price indirectly. With one of Virginia's most aggressive and innovative insurers knocked out of action, the dominant players don't have to compete as hard for their business. Just a few months out of the gate, Obamacare is falling far short of the lofty goals set for it. As Mr. Slabaugh says, "The health care reform bill was passed with the intention to increase choice and decrease the costs associated with health care. As the legislation is being implemented, I am witnessing quite the opposite, and nHealth is just one example."

James A. Bacon is author of the forthcoming book "Boomergeddon" (Oaklea Press, 2010) and publisher of the blog by the same name.

Friday, July 23, 2010

No Mosque at Ground Zero!

Muslims already have at least one mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero and don't need another.  If we allow Muslims to have yet another mosque, and that one exist within a couple blocks of Ground Zero we are waving the white flag and allowing terrorists to win, letting Muslims rule the world and create a caliphate.  This mosque has nothing to do with freedom of religion or freedom of speech but in having the citizens of the United States be subjugated by the Muslim world.  We must not let Muslims distort freedom of religion to further both their cause of terrorism and further their endgame of having complete control around the world.

H/T CreepingSharia

Pentagon Workers Tied To Child Porn

Here is the document that the Inspector General released to the public regarding their investigation of these horrendous acts that were committed against our most innocent, precious children:

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

The Ruling Class Vs. The Country Class

America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution

By Angelo M. Codevilla

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several "stimulus" bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government's agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about "global warming" for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class's continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America's upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and "bureaucrat" was a dirty word for all. So was "social engineering." Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday's upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America's ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century's Northerners and Southerners -- nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, "prayed to the same God." By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God "who created and doth sustain us," our ruling class prays to itself as "saviors of the planet" and improvers of humanity. Our classes' clash is over "whose country" America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark's Gospel: "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

The Political Divide

Important as they are, our political divisions are the iceberg's tip. When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate -- most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents -- lack a vehicle in electoral politics.

Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority's demand for representation will be filled. Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace's taunt "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans' conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so.

While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust, the American people's realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers -- easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.

Far from speculating how the political confrontation might develop between America's regime class -- relatively few people supported by no more than one-third of Americans -- and a country class comprising two-thirds of the country, our task here is to understand the divisions that underlie that confrontation's unpredictable future. More on politics below.

The Ruling Class

Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling class apart from the rest of us?

The most widespread answers -- by such as the Times's Thomas Friedman and David Brooks -- are schlock sociology. Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg's notion that America is now ruled by a "newocracy": a "new aristocracy who are the true beneficiaries of globalization -- including the multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational members of the meritocracy." In fact, our ruling class grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.

Other explanations are counterintuitive. Wealth? The heads of the class do live in our big cities' priciest enclaves and suburbs, from Montgomery County, Maryland, to Palo Alto, California, to Boston's Beacon Hill as well as in opulent university towns from Princeton to Boulder. But they are no wealthier than many Texas oilmen or California farmers, or than neighbors with whom they do not associate -- just as the social science and humanities class that rules universities seldom associates with physicians and physicists. Rather, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative "nonprofit" and "philanthropic" sectors and public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on any of America's Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Streets. These socioeconomic opposites draw their money and orientation from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in the middle ranks who aspire to be the former and identify morally with what they suppose to be the latter's grievances.

New Job

I just wanted to let all of my fellow blogging buddies know the reason why I have been posting and commenting sporadically for about the last week or so.  I have started a new job and it consists of pretty hard physical labor -- weed whacking (on freaking hills), weeding, watering flowers, etc.  By the end of the day I am dog tired. This is a seasonal job and I am really hoping to find something better soon. But, for now this is it.  I wanted to let you know that from now on I am not quite sure how often that I will be able to comment on your blogs or how often I will be able to post either.  Have a great night :)

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Obama's Patchwork Federalism

The Obama administration's claim that its legal challenge to Arizona's law is due to their strict adherence to the constitution is like an atheist claiming that he is for God. Totally ludicrous! The Obama administration thinks that the Arizona law encroaches on the Federal government's jurisdiction when it is meant to work in conjunction with the Federal immigration laws. These two laws are two peas in the same pod. What Holder & Co. hate is that the Arizona immigration law reveals that the Obama administration is willfully hostile to enforcing the existing immigration laws. Do you see the Obama administration going after sanctuary cities because of their lack of enforcing the federal law? Oh no... That would go against the Obama administration's agenda of pandering to the undocumented democrats immigrants. The truth is that the Obama administration's support is sinking faster than the Titanic. Their pathway of destruction of the constitution instead of enforcing it is causing this administration's rapid decline. Obama and Holder are quite content with abdicating the Federal government's authority to the various state laws when it comes to medical marijuana laws. The fact is that the Federal government's power has grown into a huge green giant which is stomping and crushing States' rights, abusing its power and impeding on the states' responsibility and authority to protect its citizens and enforce laws. Obama has departed from Bush policy by handing out waivers to 13 states so that they could insititute radical "climate change" policies that are more stringent than the Federal government requires.
"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," Holder said in the press release announcing the lawsuit. "Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.

The Obama administration is worried that allowing local police to arrest illegal aliens will somehow overburden federal law enforcement officers, but it isn't concerned that allowing people to grow and smoke marijuana will overburden federal drug enforcement officers? It is worried about a patchwork of immigration enforcement laws (as opposed to immigration laws), but not a patchwork of environmental regulations that directly affect interstate commerce?

Obama isn't the slightest bit concerned about a 'patchwork' of state laws that contradict and supersede federal authority. He is reaching for a legal argument to justify his desire to undo the Arizona law, which he simply dislikes."

Obama, Holder & Co. have blatantly refused to enforce the immigration laws that are presently on the books. I say to these bunch of scrap paper selective costitutional "followers" that they should move over and get the hell out of the way to allow Gov. Brewer and other state's governors to do their job properly without you interfering and inpeding their ability to do so. If you ain't going to help, get the hell outta the way. Leave them the hell alone, like you chose to do with the medical marijuana laws. This administration consistently chooses to go against the American people. Instead of serving the American people Obama admin is diametrically opposed to American citizens, like a regime or a dictatorship that doesn't give a rat's ass about their citizens but is willing to do anything to advance their own agenda. This is a constutional republic and we, the American people, will not stand by idly and silently any longer while this administration "transforms" and malforms this country into something that our Founders did not intend.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Janet Boynes: Former Lesbian Leaves the Lifestyle & Embraces God

This is a truly inspiring true story. She lived a homosexual lifestyle for 14 years until an encounter in a grocery store parking lot led her back.

From CBN: "Janet Boynes grew up in a family of seven kids, by four different fathers. The man who raised her was an alcoholic. The Boynes family always had the police outside. Janet’s mother was abused as she grew up."

"I think what you have a tendency of doing is repeating what was done to you," Janet said. "I know she wanted the best for me, but the abuse was beyond measure. I can’t remember to this day as a kid that my mother ever, you know, hugged me or told me that she loved me."CONT

Here is her book -- Called Out: A Former Lesbian's Discovery of Freedom

Friday, July 16, 2010

2 Vietnams? What?

Only if Sheila Jackson Lee had a brain.... Oh Boy! She is "a few fries short of a happy meal!" Okay... Maybe she only has the box and the toy?  She really needs to go back to grade school and relearn both history and geography.  Of course there is only one Vietnam.  You would think that a congresswoman would know that, but I guess not.

A Peacenik Went to Fight the Jews and Ended Up Getting Raped

She offered her services to help Palestinians fight against Jews and Israel.
 This woman went to the Middle East and gets raped-- raped by a "peaceful" Palestinian.

The Palestinian Authority wanted her to shut up and stop embarrassing them so they did the "fair" thing and handed her rapist's punishment out. His punishment was to say "I’m sorry I raped you. Have a nice day.”

Then he asked for her telephone number.

Can you believe this? That's it? This is utterly outrageous!! So much for punishment and justice for women in the Middle East. We need to continue to stand up for womens rights' in the Middle East.  No woman should be treated like they are someone's property. Guys this is gonna sound harsh but I think this guy deserves to be castrated. At least that would prevent him from raping another woman.  Where is the outcry from the so-called feminists in Hollywood?  Oh.... They only stand up for fellow liberal and Palestinian women. They are not feminists, but in fact feminazis.

The incident took place last April, as Omar Aladdin, who had served a term in an Israeli jail in the past after having been convicted of terrorism, arrived one evening at the guest house in which many of the foreign peace activists were staying. The European and American female activists reportedly agreed to let Aladdin stay with them after he had told them he feared the Israel Defense Forces were on his tail, adding that he had been severely beaten at an IDF checkpoint only a week before.

During his stay Aladdin attempted to rape a Muslim-American woman, nicknamed “Fegin” by fellow activists. The woman escaped, later accusing the popular protest man of the attempt. One villager who had encountered the American following the incident said she had been in a state of shock.

Aladdin then refused to apologize for the incident, when news of it reached the village’s popular committee, the popular protests’ governing body, saying that the incident had been marginal and normal. The American activist then asked the committee to notify authorities of the attempted rape, a request which resulted in the man being arrested by security forces in Bethlehem. After agreeing to apologize for the incident, Aladdin was released from custody by the PA police.

The U.S. citizen was then convinced to retract her complaint, as to avoid tainting the image of the popular protest, which had attracted praise from around the world in recent months.

We are now learning that this is one of many such incidents reported by foreign “peaceniks” who come to support the Palestinians. The Palestinians admit that, as they just said, “the incident had been marginal and normal.”

However, for Christians and Jews rape is definitely not, ” marginal and normal.” But since we are the infidels I guess nothing we do is praiseworthy and anything they do, including rape is, at the worst,” marginal and normal.”

Where are the left-wing protesters against rape? This has been, as the Palestinians mention, going on for a long time. Surely the flotilla people wouldn’t be so quiet if an Israeli were the rapist.

H/T JewishDailyReport  

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Huge Job Losses Because of Obama's Cap & Ban

From The Foundry : The front page of USA Today claims: “President Obama’s attempt to use the Gulf of Mexico oil spill to help propel comprehensive energy legislation has failed.” Don’t believe it for a second. On Monday the Obama administration reissued a ban on offshore oil drilling in the gulf after federal courts twice invalidated the first ban, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” The new ban is, if anything, more restrictive than the first, thus guaranteeing even more job losses for the already devastated Gulf region. Meanwhile, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is set to introduce a bill that will cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Taken together, the President’s Cap and Ban approach to energy policy will accomplish exactly what he set out to do from the very first day he was sworn into office: decrease the amount of carbon the U.S. economy emits by drastically increasing the cost of energy.

The mechanism Sen. Reid will use to cap carbon emissions is Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) renewable electricity standard (RES) legislation (the American Clean Energy and Security Act), which caps carbon from power plants by forcing them to produce a growing percentage of the electricity they produce from government-approved renewable energy sources every year. This is essentially cap and trade but without the trade. If these new renewable energy sources were actually cost effective, there would be no need to mandate them. Cost-minimizing firms would adopt the technology on their own to stay competitive. But renewable energy is not cost-effective. It is significantly more expensive than traditional fuels, hence the need for the government mandates which will raise everyone’s energy costs. The ultimate victim of these higher energy prices will be you the consumer and the American economy.

Taking the full cost of wind and other renewables into account, the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that an RES would: 1) raise electricity prices by 36 percent for households and 60 percent for industry; 2) cut national income (GDP) by $5.2 trillion between 2012 and 2035; 3) cut national income by $2,400 per year for a family of four; 4) reduce employment by more than 1,000,000 jobs; and 5) add more than $10,000 to a family of four’s share of the national debt by 2035.

And that is just the “cap” half of President Obama’s Cap and Ban approach. The first Obama oil drilling ban already caused some oil rigs to leave U.S. waters entirely. The threat of a second moratorium effectively created a de facto oil drilling ban and, even if they lose in court, the Obama Interior Department can further the de facto moratorium “through tough new safety regulations and by extending the time it takes to review drilling applications.” Studies show that more than 200,000 jobs are tied to the offshore drilling industry and 35,000 workers are directly involved each day when the rigs are in use. The American Petroleum Institute forecasts that if the drilling ban continues, more than 120,000 jobs could be lost in the Gulf Coast and key resources abandoned or moved elsewhere.

Worse, CNN reports that shallow water drillers say the Obama administration has not issued any permits since April 20, effectively creating a stealth ban on all offshore drilling. Heritage analyst David Kreutzer has crunched the numbers and found that a full Obama administration ban on all offshore drilling would be absolutely devastating to the U.S. economy. Between now and 2035, an offshore drilling ban would: 1) reduce GDP by $5.5 trillion; 2) reduce job growth by more than 1 million jobs by 2015 and more than 1.5 million jobs by 2030; and 3) increase the total expenditures for imported oil by nearly $737 billion.

After listening to locals testify about the economic catastrophe President Obama’s energy policies are already creating in the Gulf, former Democratic Sen. Bob Graham said he was disturbed by a “disconnect between Washington and the Gulf region about the sense of urgency needed.” There certainly is a disconnect between Washington and the rest of America. At a time of 9.5% unemployment, now is not the time to be inflicting costly Cap and Ban energy policies on the U.S. economy.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Obamacare: Betrayal by Unprincipled Catholic Nuns & USCCB Paves Way For Abortion Funding

It has come to light that Obama's executive order banning fundng of abortions isn't worth a darn.  Thanks to CHA, other "Catholic" nuns and the USCCB many more unborn babies will be murdered.  Under Obamacare, Obama will give $160 million to Pennsyvania to set up new "high-risk" insurance pools that will fund abortions.  Many of our Catholic hierarchy in the United States have lost their way.  This has got to stop!  I sure hope Pope Benedict continues clearing the filth that is rampant among certain Bishops and nuns in the U.S.

Related Post:  From Chicago Ray-- Obama OK's First Tax-Funded Abortions Under Health Care Law.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Faithful Catholicism a Firing Offense; Godophobia in Higher Education

In recent years, and especially as of late it has become more prevalent for certain people in our society to defend a Muslim’s right to free speech, and religious freedom while the exact opposite can be said for traditional Christianity. Traditional Christians are told or taught to conform to our ever-changing society which promotes homosexuality, women priests, abortion, contraception and be “tolerant” while there is no tolerance of our traditional religious beliefs. I guess “tolerance” is only a one way street. All religions should be respected for their beliefs. Our constitution guarantees “freedom of religion.” If you looked at our society one might think that our country applied the philosophy of freedom from religion instead freedom of religion in our society today. There have been way too many instances where people stir up trouble and make the claim that the word God or prayer offends them. If that is the case while at the same time they are fine with pornography and sexual implicit scenes and other moral decay of the family being prevalent on both TV and in movies it is because they are either intolerant Godophobes or they must have some mental defect that makes them incapable of comprehending the love of God. Our Founders recognized that both God and religious freedom was important for America and made that one of the underpinnings of America’s foundation. This foundation is very important for America, and for America to be “America” we must continue to defend religious freedom today and not some selective distorted quasi-religious freedom.

There has been an incident at the University of Illinois where a professor was teaching a Catholicism 101 course and someone was offended because the professor explained the tenets of Catholicism which includes having the belief that homosexual acts are a sin. The Catholic professor was fired for teaching one of the beliefs of the Catholic Church - the belief that homosexual acts are sinful. The student accused the professor of hate speech because he thought that the professor should be tolerant of what nonbelievers perceive to be moral behavior when his faith teaches him that homosexuality is immoral. This situation is ludicrous when it was his choice whether to take this particular class or not.

If you took a class called Hindu 101 would expect them to say they like beef and believed it was okay to eat beef just to conform to society when their belief is the exact opposite and that the cow is sacred? If a Christian attended a class called Jewish Faith 101 would you expect the professor to teach about the New Testament when they don’t believe in a New Covenant or that Jesus is the Son of God? Would a Christian student expect Scientology 101 to teach that Christ is Our Creator? has posted both the AP article and the email address of the public affairs office of the University of Illinois on his site. I am in full agreement with his call for people to swamp the university with emails. The fact that both the university and the on-campus Catholic center fired Dr. Howell for being a faithful Catholic is unjust. No person should be discriminated upon for their beliefs. In fact this course is all about the beliefs of the Catholic Church so this whole situation doesn’t make sense. Here is the email that caused Dr. Howell to be fired.

Here is a description of events by Dr. Howell :

Factual Description

Thomas states: “As Catholics, we can’t allow this injustice to stand. If a university can have valid grounds for firing a professor as upstanding a this one for an opinion so universally held by the Church, other universities will be able to gradually push out faithful Catholic teachers from their institutions once they decide the positions taken by the Church and being defended by such-and-such a teacher are inconvenient or offensive.”

I am in full agreement with Thomas’s statement. The University of Illinois is penalizing and persecuting Dr. Howell for his being a faithful Catholic. Secular society is praising dissenting Catholics while persecuting and marginalizing faithful Catholics. This is wrong! We have become a nation in which it is only acceptable to have one set of “religious beliefs” that conforms to those secular societal beliefs of moral relativism, where there is an anything goes policy. These people do not believe in moral absolutes. We have become a nation that no longer respects one’s religious beliefs. This is exactly what the Founders feared. We must fight back against this injustice. When being faithful to one’s own faith, one’s own moral principles is considered to be hate speech then this country has veered way off course to the Left and entered into being an anti-religious State that is diametrically opposite to our Founders core beliefs as to citizens right to religious freedom. We must keep on fighting the good fight to retain and restore our religious rights and restore many of the rights that the immoral secular Left have stolen from us. We must stop the Godophobia!

Friday, July 9, 2010

Reduce The Defense Budget?

E.D. Kain gives reasons why we should reduce our defense budget. He agrees with Grayson's proposed legislation, "The War is Making You Poor Act", which would carve out $159 billion from the defense budget.  Maybe we could reduce military spending? But, the United States is usually the first country that is asked for help when any disaster occurs. The National Defense Magazine answers five important questions related to E.D. Kain's proposition to cut the defense budget.  Maybe Americans shouldn't expect a payment even if the defense budget is cut?  Plus, that wouldn't help reduce the deficit one iota if the money that was originally used for defense spending is just spread around to taxpayers.  Reducing taxes for both individual taxpayers and small businesses would accomplish the same thing as Grayson's Act by simply allowing taxpayers to keep more of their money, encouraging small businesses to hire, and that in turn would stimulate the economy.  If you look at the 2010 budgets for all the departments run by the federal government the defense budget seems quite reasonable and on target.  In fact, it seems like some other agencies run by the federal government could reduce their budgets.  But, maybe the defense budget could be reduced also?

Sarah Palin: Mama Grizzlies

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Street Talk With Fr. Stan Fortuna: Suffering & Redemption

Here is Fr. Stan Fortuna performing Catholic rap:

Are Democratic Policies Causing America's Decline?

Victor Davis Hanson weighs the current bad policies of the Obama administration, the bad policies that are yet to come from the Obama administration with how America has been  a force for good in the world, continues to be a force for good in the world, and is indeed an exceptional nation.

From Mort Zuckerman who is a Democrat and always votes Democrat agreed with Niall Ferguson that our current policies along with the financial meltdown is taking America in decline at a very rapid pace. The video compilation is here.

Are we in a decline? A rapid decline? I think that we are in a decline at the present time. I think that if we reverse course and do a 180 from the Obama administration's policies then we can stop the decline and start on a pathway to economic prosperity.

The Battle of New Oil-leans

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Culture War Links 7-7

Indonesian Muslims Call for Halt to 'Christianization'

Here is A Bishop's Perspective on Independence Day

Here are the Black Panthers 'Cracker' Bashing

Here is an excellent summary of the New York Times and all the News that is UNFIT to Print

Abortions in healthcare law and conscience protections out.

Elena Kagan's Revealing Commerce Clause Evasion

Immigration Speech: President Obama Distorts Truth 7 Times in 54 Seconds

Obama is the master of deception and lies. Bryan Fischer points out that President Obama broke his own record for the number of times that he distorted the truth in the shortest duration in history. Obama distorted the truth 7 times in 54 seconds during his immigration speech. Maybe we should send Obama to Liars Anonymous?

Bryan Fischer points out Obama's distortions here: 

"Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it's not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive — although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona's put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes — driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult."

"ill conceived" — In the most significant parts of the Arizona law, its language is drawn word-for-word from federal immigration statutes signed into law by Democrat icons. The requirement that every non-citizen in the U.S. be required to carry documentation was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. Other parts of the law mirror language from the immigration law signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, a bill championed by Sen. Ted Kennedy.

"divisive" — 71% of Arizonans support the bill. It has unified rather than divided. In politics, a 60-40 win is considered a landslide. For a law to get 71% support is an overwhelming mandate.

"unenforceable" — Just ask Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio exactly how difficult this law is to enforce. If other communities find it unenforceable, they need better sheriffs.

"budgets" — Just ask Arizonans about budgetary impacts. They are coughing up $2.7 billion a year for education, welfare, health care and law enforcement costs to deal with the illegal alien problem. A secure border would free up almost $3 billion dollars, either to be returned to the wallets of residents or spent on other programs. Mayfield, California, a city which declared itself a "safe haven" for illegal aliens, just closed down under the strain of budgetary pressures.

"report crimes" — This is just ridiculous. Nobody asks for your Social Security number when you call 911. They just send a squad car. And the Arizona law only allows law enforcement to check your immigration status if you are committing a crime, not if you are reporting one.

"streets more dangerous" — Ask the residents of Phoenix about this one. Phoenix is now second only to Mexico City as the kidnapping capital of the world. Home invasions, drug crimes and street crimes are up — "off the charts" to use Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu's words — because of illegal aliens. The federal government has virtually ceded large swathes of sovereign U.S. territory to the drug cartels, putting signs up warning U.S. citizens to stay of U.S. property because Mexican drug cartels control it. Mayfield, California, which declared itself a "safe haven" for illegal aliens, just closed down.

"jobs of our police officers more dangerous" — Ask Joslyn Johnson, the widow of slain Houston patrolman Rodney Johnson, who was shot to death in 2006 by an illegal alien who had already been deported one time and had been arrested at least three times before gunning Johnson down at a routine traffic stop. If our southern border were secure, Rodney Johnson would be alive today. Making their jobs more dangerous? Hardly. It's the other way round.

H/T RenewAmerica

Krista Branch: "I Am America"

I heard about this song and video on the Glenn Beck program today.

H/T Hopenchangery

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Caeser Obama and His Empire of Progressive Leftist-Fascists

This is a great article by James Lewis of the American Thinker :

We are seeing another Left-fascist axis in our time, recapitulating Stalin's (and worldwide communism's) embrace of Hitler's Germany. The Gaza flotilla crisis was set up by the radical Left (Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jodie Evans and other Obama buds), in collusion with Hamas, which is about as fascist as they get. If you doubt it, watch Hamas TV on the MEMRI website. They are the worst. They teach toddlers about the glories of dying for Allah. Even Fatah thinks Hamas is a throwback to the Dark Ages.

In the Gaza flotilla, the Turks who yelled out "Khaibar! Khaibar!" as they were trying to kill Israeli soldiers, were members of the Turkish branch of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood. They yelled out "Khaibar!" because that massacre of Jews was Mohammed's own Auschwitz. That doesn't leave any doubt about who they are. Martyrdom is just a means to an end, and that end is "Khaibar." The media always forget to tell us that part.

Words matter, which is why the Left is always making up new words for themselves, to disguise who they really are. The Left isn't Communist any more, they are "progressive" -- which leaves the rest of us back in 1776. "Progressives" always know which way to find "progress," and it always comes down to stomping on the rest of us. Because if you're not "progressive" you must be an enemy of "progress."

The radical Left hasn't changed one smidgen since Stalin. The Left still believes in global totalitarianism. Stalin is dead, but Stalinism is on the march. Listen to the stomping of their boots.

The Left is a throwback to all the ancient utopian cults, the Mayans, Genghis Khan and the Yellow Emperor of China, Idi Amin Dada and Robert Mugabe. It's the ancient Egyptian priesthood, which was also a cult run by a totalitarian clique. In ancient Egypt you had to die to get to utopia, but the psychology is always the same. Utopian cults always appeal to suckers. They are a very nasty part of the human condition. But there's nothing new there, and they are certainly not "progressive." They are a throwback.

Obama doesn't look like a normal American because he is a High Priest. Harry Truman wouldn't recognize him, but King Tut would. Obama has all the arrogance and ignorance of a Pharaoh.

So here are two ways to simplify the daily media circus. First, the media are the cult of the Left, trying to twist your mind. The "Left" equals global totalitarianism, which is Stalinism, which is Leninism, which is radical feminism, which is the hateful racism of the Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Same story, different labels. Keep it simple.

Whatever mask they try on, radical leftists are internationalists -- meaning that they are against America as a sovereign nation. That's Obama's real beef against us, and it's why he will never enforce our borders. Sure, leftists are all "patriots" in their own minds, because they worship the prairie flowers and the pretty mountains. And they all despise MacDonald's hamburgers and eat arugula, because at bottom they are the most amazing snobs. America is just one little piece of Planet Gaia, where everybody will live in peace and harmony because Obama or Algore will rule us with an iron fist. It's all for our own good.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Happy Independence Day!

This video is about Gloucester's contributions that changed the tides of the Revolutionary War which helped lead to our final victory against the British. We must remember that our brave Founding Fathers and other patriots on the battlefield stood up against tyranny and did not give up when the going got tough.  They continued the fight and prevailed.  We must look to our Founding Fathers for inspiration and guidance as we fight to keep our nation free today against the evil forces that wish to bring about tyranny upon us and our nation today.  We must keep our heads held high, keep fighting the good fight, and know that with God all things are possible. 


Happy Independence Day!!

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Obama/Holder DOJ Sides With Black Panther Criminal Thugs: Say Bye Bye To Whites' Voting Rights

This administration has consistently sided with and given more rights to the suspected terrorists, union thugs, and illegal immigrants crossing our border rather than innocent citizens here in the United States. The Obama administration has been the most divisive and openly contemptuous toward the American people in history. The DOJ's case against the New Black Panthers was a slam dunk and the DOJ had already been handed a default judgement but in what seems to be a both racially and politically motivated move, the new Holder-led DOJ dismissed the charges against the New Black Panthers. The New Black Panthers had violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but was being ignored because it was a case against blacks so Holder & Co. believes that blacks and any Leftist has the right to do whatever they want against whitey and/or any conservative. Had the roles been reversed you can be damn skippy guaranteed that there would have been a huge firestorm from the liberal media. The fact that the charges were dropped doesn't even make sense since the government had already won their case against the New Black Panthers.

There just happened to be an unlikely eye witness to the whole incident. The famous civil rights attorney Bartle Bull was there at that Philadelphia polling place when he witnessed members of the New Black Panthers brandishing a billy club, blocking the entrance to a polling place, and issuing verbal threats, specifically to white voters seeking entrance to the polling place in the national election in 2008. Bartle Bull is a liberal and lifelong Democrat and is knowledgable about voter rights. He was a campaign manager for both Robert Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. In the 1960s Bartle Bull worked as a civil rights attorney on the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law seeking to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Mississippi, ensuring blacks' right to vote and protecting blacks from voter intimidation. J. Christian Adamson who was a DOJ attorney working on the case has just recently resigned over the corrupt nature of the dismissal of the charges and statements falsely characterizing this case. He has come forward to tell the truth and explains the details here.

Here is Bartle Bull being interviewed by Megyn Kelly on America Live

Friday, July 2, 2010

Ronald Reagan's Address to the Nation on Independence Day 1986

I thought that this speech given by Ronald Reagan would be good to listen to as we approach Independence Day.  God Bless America!

Did The Belgian Police Use Catholic Church to Lure Victims?

It looks like the Belgian Police used the Catholic Church in order use the abuse victims.  Let the truth about the awful priest sexual abuse cases be revealed but also let's have due process take its course.  One of the things I found awful about the raids is the police drilled holes into the crypts or graves.  

From the AP: BRUSSELS — A Belgian man who says he was sexually abused by a priest filed a complaint with Brussels prosecutors Tuesday after his confidential testimony to a church-appointed panel was seized by Belgian police.

Jan Hertogen, a 63-year-old sociologist, said he told his story to the panel on the condition it would not be passed to authorities. He said the police raids — which also targeted a Catholic cathedral, church offices and a crypt — were an invasion of his privacy.

"After all those years, I told my story to the (sex-abuse panel) insisting it not be shared," he said, adding that he was now willing to speak to the media because he was so distressed at the victims' loss of privacy.

Hertogen wants all 475 men and boys who contacted the panel with allegations of abuse to complain to the Brussels prosecutor's office and register as "injured parties."

That would allow alleged victims access to information about any prosecutions resulting from the June 24 raids, which sparked a storm of protest by the Vatican after files were confiscated, bishops detained and holes drilled into a prelate's tomb to search for documents.

The Belgian police are investigating clerical sexual abuse after the country's longest serving bishop stepped down in April, confessing he had sexually molested a boy. Several other men and boys had said they had previously told Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who retired in January, about abuse but their complaints had not been investigated.

His home was among the targets of the raids.

The Catholic Church says it had the right to investigate allegations alongside police and the head of the panel accused prosecutors of using them as "bait" to lure frightened victims into the open. Pope Benedict XVI called the raids "deplorable."

But in a sign the row may be abating, Belgian officials will meet a papal envoy within days to discuss the raids, said foreign ministry spokesman Bart Ouvry. He did not give a date for the meeting between Archbishop Giacinto Berloco and Foreign Minister Steven Vanackere.

After the raids were carried out a child psychiatrist renounced his position on the Belgian abuse commission.

From New York Times: 'On Monday, that prompted the new head of that commission, Peter Adriaenssens, a child psychiatrist, to renounce his position along with other members, complaining that the commission had been used by authorities as “bait.” '