George A. Sprecace M.D.,
J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New
RESPONSE (Archives)...Daily Commentary on News of the Day
This is a new section. It will
quick reactions by myself to news and events of the day, day by day, in
this rapid-fire world of ours. Of course, as in military
a rapid response in one direction may occasionally have to be followed
by a "strategic withdrawal" in another direction. Charge that to
"the fog of war", and to the necessary flexibility any mental or
campaign must maintain to be effective. But the mission will
be the same: common sense, based upon facts and "real politick",
by a visceral sense of Justice and a commitment to be pro-active.
That's all I promise.
to return to the current Rapid Response list
WEDNESDAY, February 27 through 29, 2012
Krauthammer with laser-like clarity.
Obamacare turning U.S.
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Publication: The Day
SUNDAY, February 26, 2012
Updated 02/17/2012 05:25 PM
Give him points for cleverness. President
Obama's birth control "accommodation" was as politically successful as
it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that
still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide
medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation
and morning-after abortifacients - all of which violate church doctrine
on the sanctity of life.
The trick is that these birth
control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and
free of charge by the religious institution's insurance company. But
this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for
example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that
is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to
all Holy Cross employees.
Nonetheless, the accounting device worked
politically. It took only a handful of compliant Catholic groups -
Obamacare cheerleaders dying to return to the fold - to hail the
alleged compromise, and hand Obama a major political victory.
Before, Obama's coalition had been split.
His birth control mandate was fiercely opposed by such stalwart friends
as former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine and pastor Rick Warren (Obama's
choice to give the invocation at his inauguration), who declared he
would go to jail rather than abide by the regulation. After the
"accommodation," it was the (mostly) Catholic opposition that
fractured. The mainstream media then bought the compromise as
substantive, and the issue was defused.
A brilliant sleight of hand. But let's
for a moment accept the president on his own terms. Let's accept his
contention that this "accommodation" is a real shift of responsibility
to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate?
The president of the United States has just ordered private companies
to give away for free a service that his own health and human services
secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.
On what authority? Where does it say that
the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an
allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select
This is government by presidential fiat.
In Venezuela, that's done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama's
"accommodation" Presidential Decree No. 1.
Consider the constitutional wreckage left
First, its assault on the free exercise
of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the
churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious
institution must bow to the state because, by this administration's
regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not
"religious," and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion -
no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by
Second, its assault on free enterprise.
To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a
private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain
services - all of which are free. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation
of power is simply the logical extension of Washington's takeover of
the private system of medical care - a system Obama farcically pretends
to be maintaining.
Under Obamacare, the state treats private
insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities.
It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set
premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age,
gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is
nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a
middleman, subject to state control - and presidential whim.
Third, the assault on individual
autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again
under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before
the Supreme Court - because never before has the already inflated
Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private
contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.
This constitutional trifecta - the state
invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and
the individual citizen - should not surprise. It is what happens when
the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.
In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the
future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance
powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two
years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before
our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the
opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition
Every presidential challenger says he
will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making
the case for why?
OF..." Maureen Dowd?
This ultra-liberal columnist, whose regular rants come close to
elements of Democratic output (Articulate, Arrogant, Asinine), has an
article in the NYTimes Sunday, Feb. 26, 2012, SR p11, entitled "Ghastly
Outdated Party". Get it? GOP. But I'm not clear
to whether it represents expected "Shadenfreude" from that
source...or whether she is expressing unconscious regret over the
things, or whether she is "whistling going by a cemetery".
Of course, at least in accepting her opinions as presented, she is
What we finally have in the Republican Primary season, however hard it
watch, is the articulation of an actual CHOICE: a choice between a
secular and mammoth government way of life reflective of Socialism, and
limited government / responsible citizenry approach written into our
Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Of course, the Republican
is very uncomfortable with this situation...thriving very well under
present regime and not keen on changing much. But Joe the Plumber
at all comfortable...and is looking for a real choice.
Well, here it is, Joe. Just remember: "IN A DEMOCRACY, THE PEOPLE
ALWAYS GET WHAT THEY DESERVE".
A CALL TO
THE LAITY, THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, FOR THEIR HELP.
Although I admit to a little hyperbole here, the Church has for many
failed to engage its Catholics in the pews to assist in dealing with
challenges facing their Religion and the country as a whole. A
to the days of "Pray, Pay and Obey". For a long time,
the laity in general has not felt itself to be in a partnership with
/ Hierarchy. And so, they found other things to do on
during the entire week as well.
Now comes a plea directly from the Holy Father, in an address
to the Bishops of the Washington DC area during their visit to Rome
recently. Appearing in the March 2012 issue of Columbia (www.kofc.org/columbia), it is
"A Critical Role To Play". And it is right on
point. Let's see if this call for action finds its way onto the
and into the homilies of our Bishops and Pastors. The vast
majority of American
Catholics are awaiting such a CALL TO ACTION.
SATURDAY, February 25, 2012
REVOLVED ABOUT THE "OBAMACARE" LAW. FAIR ENOUGH, FOR
THAT IS A CHRISTMAS TREE OF WANTS THAT DOES LITTLE OR NOTHING TO
HEALTH CARE REFORM NEEDS. AND THE STATED JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS
FEDERAL INCURSION IS ALLEGED "SPIRALING HEALTH CARE COSTS"
THAT REPORTEDLY REPRESENT A "NATIONAL CRISIS".
NOW SEE THE ARTICLE IN THE WSJ, FRIDAY, FEB. 17, 2012, ENTITLED "THE
MYTH OF RUNAWAY HEALTH SPENDING", BY J.D. KLEINKE
THEN TAKE A LOOK AT THE ARTICLES POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE (www.asthma-drsprecace.com)
THE CATEGORIES "HEALTH LAW" AND "MANAGED CARE". YOU
WILL ALSO FIND AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED BY ME IN 1978. SEE IF
CHANGED. AS WE IN THE HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONS KNOW VERY WELL: THE
DIAGNOSIS LEADS TO THE WRONG TREATMENT...AND TO A SICKER PATIENT.
WHAT WE HAVE HAD HERE FOR OVER THIRTY YEARS, THANKS TO OUR "FEARLESS
LEADERS". IT DID NOT...AND DOES NOT...HAVE TO BE THAT WAY.
FRIDAY, February 24, 2012
TO WESTERN CIVILIZATION AND TO WORLD PEACE.
As I began thinking about another edition of "Around the World in 80
Opinions", I quickly came to realize that there is one common
denominator to the most serious of the world's current dangers.
Certainly, "the poor will always be with us"; and the greed of
the wealthy as well as of the lazy is an integral part of human nature;
humans cannot handle power without becoming corrupt and
Those are givens.
But what is the most serious of the entire world's current dangers is
FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM. The Religion itself is noble and sacred, is
extension of the Judeo-Christian Faiths and prays to the same
Fundamentalist Islam is not only a perversion of that Religion; but it
also despotic political power that seeks to overthrow all other powers
systems of government together with their fundamental individual
This fact should be realized, articulated and countered world-wide by
Western World and especially by Moderate Muslims - they who alone can
this evil to heel and recapture their Faith - for their own welfare and
safety of the world. Until this goal is achieved, the West needs
engage this threat frontally, something that is only being done in a
way. This is a much greater threat than Soviet Communism ever
And we have much fewer than 70 years to resolve it.
"IS ANYBODY THERE? DOES ANYBODY CARE?"
THURSDAY, February 23, 2012
The world seen from Rome
State Upholds Pharmacists' Conscience Rights
Strikes Down Law on Dispensation of Morning-after Pill
Washington, FEB. 22, 2012 (Zenit.org).- A federal court in Tacoma,
Washington, struck down today a law that required pharmacists to
morning-after pill in violation of their religious beliefs.
court held that the law violates the First Amendment right to free
of religion, a statement from the The Becket Fund for Religious
co-represented the plaintiffs, explained.
decision sends a very clear message: No individual can be forced out of
her profession solely because of her religious beliefs, said Luke
deputy national litigation director at the Becket Fund for Religious
If the state allows pharmacies to refer patients elsewhere for
business, and convenience reasons, it has to allow them to refer for
plaintiffs in the case were a family-owned pharmacy and two individual
pharmacists who refused in conscience to dispense Plan B (the
pill) or Ella (the week-after pill).
2007, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy passed new regulations
it illegal to refer patients to neighboring pharmacies for reasons of
despite allowing them to refer patients elsewhere for a wide variety of
business, economic, or convenience reasons. Because of the
one of the plaintiffs lost her job and another was told she would have
transfer to another state; the owner of the pharmacy faced repeated
investigations and threats of punishment from the state board.
Board of Pharmacy's 2007 rules are not neutral, and they are not
applicable, the court declared. They were designed instead to force
objectors to dispense Plan B, and they sought to do so despite the fact
refusals to deliver for all sorts of secular reasons were permitted.
Board's regulations have been aimed at Plan B and conscientious
from their inception, the court added. Indeed, Plaintiffs have
of [internal government documents] demonstrating that the predominant
of the rule was to stamp out the right to refuse [for religious
TUESDAY and WEDNESDAY, February 21 and 22, 2012
The U.S. Supreme is not final because it is infallible. It is
"infallible" because it is final.
Reverse decision that sold-out democracy
MONDAY, February 20, 2012
Updated 02/21/2012 10:03 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court should seize the
opportunity to reverse its misguided 5-4 decision in the Citizens
United case, a ruling that has introduced unprecedented corporate and
special interest spending into the presidential campaign, distorting
the election process and inviting corruption. It will take only one
changed vote to correct that mistake. The most likely switch is Justice
Last month the Montana Supreme Court
rejected the underpinnings of the Citizens decision. By a 5-2 vote it
upheld a century-old Montana anti-corruption law banning political
expenditures by corporations. That state long ago learned the hard
lesson that when corporations can buy candidates they also buy power. A
century ago the so-called "Copper Kings" controlled elected officials
in Montana and made sure they did the bidding of the mining industry.
In upholding Montana's law, that state's
high court found itself in direct conflict with the Citizens ruling,
which concluded that any laws limiting spending by corporations and
other interest groups violated the Constitution's free speech
protection. The U.S. Supreme Court had no choice but to order a stay of
the Montana ruling, given the state court's refusal to follow the high
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, is asking her fellow
justices to use the Montana case to reconsider Citizens.
"Montana's experience, and experience
elsewhere since this Court's decision in Citizens United … make it
exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by
corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of
corruption.' A petition (to hear the Montana case) will give the Court
an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently
deployed to buy candidates' allegiances, Citizens United should
continue to hold sway," wrote Justice Ginsburg.
The conclusion that allowing corporate
money to flow unhindered into election campaigns would "not give rise
to corruption or the appearance of corruption" was critical to the
Citizens decision. If a majority of justices, when considering the
Montana case and what has happened since their Citizens ruling,
conclude that out-of-control campaign contributions do give rise to
corruption and the appearance of corruption, that could trump the free
speech argument and lead the court to reverse, or at least moderate,
the Citizens decision.
The people of Montana know that
unregulated corporate campaign money can corrupt a government. It's why
the Supreme Court there stood by the state's law. And we are seeing how
corruptive super-PAC money is on federal campaigns. Super Political
Action Committees may now raise unlimited sums of money from
corporations, unions, associations and individuals to advocate for or
against political candidates.
According to the Center for Responsive
Politics, 332 groups organized as super PACs have reported total
receipts of $98.7 million and total expenditures of $51.2 million in
the 2012 election cycle. In the Republican presidential primary,
Restore Our Future has raised $30.2 million to back Mitt Romney;
Winning Our Future has invested $9.8 million in Newt Gingrich; and the
group Red, White & Blue has spent $3.12 million on Rick Santorum.
With the Citizens decision eliminating
limits on individual contributions, individual magnates are donating
staggering amounts. It's not hard to conclude who will hold sway in a
Romney administration, considering that $5 million of the pro-Romney
Restore Our Future money came from just 25 tycoons and corporations,
including $500,000 each from Oklahoma mining executive Joseph W. Craft
and billionaire hedge-fund mogul Bruce Kovner.
Typically the campaigns use super-PAC
money to purchase voluminous negative attack ads, often full of
distortions, to try to destroy an opponent, a tactic Mr. Romney has
frequently employed. In writing the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy
stated these super PACs should remain independent of the candidates. In
reality, former campaign aides staff many of the PACs, well versed on
campaign strategies. These groups also lack the transparency Justice
The spending and corruptive influence
will grow as the campaigns move to the general election.
President Obama, who rightly criticized
the Citizens decision, has effectively sold out, signaling his campaign
will cooperate and benefit from friendly super PACs. Obama campaign
officials say they had no choice if they hoped to compete. We would
have preferred the president stood on his principles.
Citizens was a terrible decision that has
put our democracy up for sale. The Supreme Court should reverse it and
again allow the use of reasonable campaign spending limits.
knew that the
Honeymoon of "Public Education Reform in Connecticut" could not last.
Battle lines forming over tenure
By JC Reindl
Publication: The Day
Malloy plan to revise standards called
unfair by teacher unions
Hartford - When Gov. Dannel P. Malloy unveiled the
teacher tenure components of his public schools reform plan in his
State of the State address earlier this month, initial reaction from
state teachers' unions was mostly circumspect.
"I think we have a lot in common, but the devil is in the details,"
Mary Loftus Levine, executive director of the 43,000-member Connecticut
Education Association, said shortly after the Feb. 8 speech.
Most criticisms that day concerned the governor's broad-brush
interpretation of current tenure requirements. "Basically, the only
thing you have to do is show up for four years," he said.
But that was almost two weeks ago. Teachers and union leaders have
since pored over the specifics of the legislation Malloy and Stefan
Pryor, the new commissioner of education, are proposing for this year's
short session of the General Assembly. And those details, in their
eyes, are looking rather devilish.
In an interview, Levine said her members will be out "in full force"
at public hearings this afternoon and Wednesday at the Capitol to
oppose what they consider the bill's worst parts: the weakening of
teacher tenure and linking salary guidelines to new certification
requirements and an evaluation system.
Levine called those proposals misguided, overreaching and offensive,
and said they would make it less desirable to be a teacher in
"People are outraged at these proposals," Levine said. "There is no
research-based evidence to prove that these plans will do anything to
improve student achievement."
The 28,000-member AFT Connecticut is also preparing for what could
be a tumultuous two days of hearings before the Education Committee.
"Our members are very upset and very angry," union spokesman Eric
State Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, the education committee's
co-chairman, said she is waiting until after the hearings to form an
opinion on the tenure and certification proposals.
"We need that feedback from people in the education community as to
what they envision any changes should be - if they want it," Stillman
'Too easy to get' tenure
The system of tenure for Connecticut public school teachers dates to
the mid-20th century.
"It came about when teachers were fired for getting pregnant, for
saying the wrong thing in classrooms, and so on," said Robert Rader,
executive director of the Connecticut Association of Boards of
Education and a supporter of the governor's tenure plan. "Teachers were
let go for reasons that are now protected by law."
Under current education law, teachers attain tenure after working
four years in the same district. Tenured teachers then get their
contracts automatically renewed every year and can be dismissed only
for one of six reasons: "inefficiency or incompetence," layoffs,
insubordination, moral misconduct, disability or another "due and
A tenured teacher facing a layoff can bump a nontenured colleague
from his or her job. And tenured teachers can appeal their firing
through a process involving a three-person panel with testimony that
can stretch over 75 days or more.
Critics contend that, in practice, it can take a year or more in
some districts to dismiss a tenured teacher, even one who is truly bad.
They also say there are too many dismal yet not quite egregious
teachers who become frozen into their jobs.
"The bottom line?" Malloy said in his State of the State. "Today,
tenure is too easy to get and too hard to take away."
The governor's proposal would make it harder for teachers to get and
keep tenure, and easier for districts to fire them. The backbone of the
plan is a new, four-level performance scale: "Exemplary," "Proficient,"
"Developing" and "Below Standard."
To attain tenure, a teacher would need to achieve two "exemplary"
ratings in three years, or a combination of three "proficient" or
"exemplary" ratings in five years.
A tenured teacher would have regular evaluations and could be
dismissed for just once scoring "below standard" or for being rated as
"developing" for two consecutive years.
The proposal also allows districts to sack new teachers at will for
up to a year instead of the current 90-day period.
Levine said the proposed standards are unfair to teachers, as
members of other licensed professions generally don't lose their jobs
after one bad evaluation. "This is another example of teacher-bashing
and putting the blame where it does not belong," she said.
To shorten the dismissal process, a tenured teacher would appeal to
a single arbitrator chosen by the teacher and the district
superintendent. The hearing would then be limited to 30 days and eight
hours of testimony.
Bill going too far?
The CEA says it wants to revamp outdated parts of the tenure system
by shortening the appeals process and reducing the number of
arbitrators, as the governor proposed.
But the association and AFT Connecticut argue that Malloy's bill
goes too far, and would dissolve protections against teachers' jobs
being threatened for personal or political reasons.
Joel Farrior, president of the Montville Education Association, is
concerned that the tenure proposal could encourage districts to cut
costs by jettisoning their veteran teachers at the top of the salary
scale and replacing them with recent college graduates.
"Once you have that due process or tenure, it shouldn't be up for
renewal -you've proven your worth," said Farrior, a social studies
teacher at Leonard J. Tyl Middle School. "You could be the best teacher
in the classroom and you're still not guaranteed to keep your job."
Many private-sector workers in non-union workplaces live with
constant uncertainty about their employment. But Farrior says that
stripping away teachers' job security will hurt the profession and, in
turn, the students.
"If this is the direction you want, you're going to find fewer
people who want to teach," he said.
In a phone interview Friday, Pryor said the tenure changes are
intended to raise standards in the teaching profession and ensure that
tenure is meaningful.
"Teachers ought to be held up as the tremendously valuable members
of society that they are," Pryor said. "The system that we're designing
aims of ensuring that."
Three certificate steps
This month, the state Board of Education agreed on a framework for
teacher evaluations that would be linked to the performance ratings.
The guidelines were put together by a council of teachers, principals,
school boards and others.
The evaluation elements are 45 percent tied to student "learning
indicators," with one-half of that based on standardized tests; 40
percent on observations of teacher performance; 10 percent on peer or
parent surveys; and 5 percent on student feedback or "whole-school"
The governor's proposal also would replace the existing teacher
certification system with three new steps: Initial, Professional and
Master. Movement between the certifications would largely be determined
by performance on the new teacher evaluations.
By either mid-2014 or mid-2015, school districts would have to base
their teacher salary scales on the new certifications - no longer on an
educator's years of experience or number of advanced degrees.
Current teachers, regardless of their time in the district, would
start at year one in pursuit of the new "Master" Certificate, which
would require at least three "exemplary" performance ratings over five
"The new system evolves the former system to one that is more linked
to performance," Pryor told lawmakers at his confirmation hearing.
The CEA is worried that the new certificate system would give boards
of education an incentive to set lower salaries.
Pryor denied any aim to shrivel teachers' pay.
"It is the case that there is limited correlation between the
holding of a master's degree and teacher effectiveness," Pryor said in
an interview. "We do believe it's important that school districts be
able to account for other factors that may be even better indicators of
Leo Facchini, a science teacher at New London High School, feels the
reform proposal is an attempt to scapegoat teachers for the state's
nation-leading achievement gap between students from low-income homes
and their more affluent peers. Teachers can only influence a student's
development to a point, he said.
"I think a lot of this stuff is a knee-jerk reaction to the low test
scores," Facchini said. "If our test scores don't go up, it's not
because we're not working hard or because we're doing anything wrong."
THEN THERE IS
THIS, MY FAVORITE EXCERPT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT OF THE HOLY BIBLE:
says the Lord:
not the events of the past,
the things of long ago consider not;
I am doing something new!
Now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?
the desert I make a way,
in the wasteland, rivers.
people I formed for myself,
that they might announce my praise.
you did not call upon me, O Jacob,
for you grew weary of me, O Israel.
burdened me with your sins,
and wearied me with your crimes.
is I, I, who wipe out,
for my own sake, your offenses;
your sins I remember no more."
word of the Lord.
BE TO GOD.
Click here to see the presentation.
GRAPES OF WRATH
To a certain proportion of the Citizenry of New London: STUPIDO.
Norwich to Coast Guard: We're here
By Claire Bessette
Publication: The Day
Norwich - Even if the
U.S. Coast Guard Academy doesn't expand into Norwich, residents can
look for increased presence by academy cadets in the Rose City in the
Academy Superintendent Rear Adm. Sandra
L. Stosz spent more than two hours Friday having lunch with Norwich
officials and touring the former Shipping Street area.
"This land is available," Mayor Peter
Nystrom said as he and Stosz viewed the vacant lots between the New
England Central freight rail tracks and the Thames River on Shipping
Street. "It needs some things done, but it's suitable for any type of
The area is a former industrial district
that once housed oil depots and factories. Nystrom met with owners of
the major parcels Monday and told Stosz they are willing to discuss any
uses the Coast Guard could make of the properties.
The meeting and tour were arranged to
discuss possible Coast Guard Academy expansion into Norwich after New
London voters in November rejected a plan to sell a portion of
Riverside Park, located adjacent to the academy, to the Coast Guard.
While Nystrom is on record as supporting the academy expansion in New
London, he said if that can't happen Norwich wants to be considered as
"Certainly Norwich was kind enough to
offer that they are here and there are expansion opportunities here if
that can't be accomplished in New London," Stosz said after luncheon
and before visiting Shipping Street.
Norwich officials presented Stosz with a
bouquet of roses, and city computer technician Nick Kingsley made her a
braided sailor's bracelet, a craft he learned during 10 years working
on a lobster boat.
In the corner of the City Hall conference
room, a large sign - "Norwich Welcomes Coast Guard Academy" - stood on
an easel. Nystrom and Stosz posed for photos in front of the sign.
Friday's discussion centered on more than
the academy's future expansion. The parties discussed bringing the
Coast Guard Jazz Band to Norwich for a waterfront concert this summer
as part of the Rock the Docks series at Howard T. Brown Memorial Park
at Norwich Harbor. Nystrom brought Stosz to the park after visiting
The group also hopes to arrange a concert
by the Coast Guard Band in the city's new Kelly Middle School
Auditorium and to invite Adm. Robert J. Papp Jr. - Coast Guard
commandant and Kelly Middle School and Norwich Free Academy graduate -
back to his hometown for the "homecoming" celebration, said City
Councilor Charles Jaskiewicz.
Coast Guard cadets also will be invited
to Norwich for education mentoring programs, community service projects
and possibly to be paired up with local students learning to sail in a
proposed sailing program at Norwich Harbor, Stosz said.
And the Coast Guard Academy baseball team
could play a home game or two at Thomas J. Dodd Memorial Stadium. The
team's season runs through May, before the Connecticut Tigers minor
league baseball team gets started.
"I'm overwhelmed with the hospitality
that has been expressed here today for the Coast Guard Academy," Stosz
said as the group prepared to visit Brown Park, where the outdoor
summer concerts are held. "I've met a whole new group of people who
the San Andreas Fault of American Society.
Every Catholic Bishop Opposes Obama
Mandate, Lutherans Too
by Steven Ertelt |
Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 2/17/12 12:30 PM
Every one of the 181 Catholic bishops in
the United States have now issued individual comments, statements or
opinion columns condemning the new mandate pro-abortion President
Barack Obama put in place forcing religious employers to pay for birth
control and abortion-causing drugs.
Thomas Peters, who runs the American
Papist blog, has been compiling the statements from each bishop since
Obama first put the mandate in place last month.
“From Portland, Maine to San Diego,
California; From Miami, Florida to Seattle, Washington,” Peters
writes. “Every single Roman Catholic bishop in the United States
has condemned in public the Obamacare HHS mandate — all 181 bishops who
lead dioceses in the U.S. have spoken.”
“This is a simply incredible, unified,
universal Catholic witness on this critical issue of religious
freedom,” peters adds. “I am no longer able to find a single Roman
Catholic bishop who has NOT spoken out against the mandate publicly. It
is also my presumption that this conclusion applies to all Eastern Rite
and Sui Iuris bishops in the U.S. It’s a complimentary sign of Catholic
solidarity that so many Catholics across the country proudly helped me
add their bishop’s name to this list.”
Peters has also compiled a listing of
Catholic institutions that have spoken out against the mandate and that
number is now at 30 and continues to grow.
But Catholics are not the only pro-life
Americans upset by Obama’s attack on religious freedom by having them
violate their conscience on pro-life issues.
Reverend Dr. Matthew C. Harrison,
President of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, told members of
Congress at a hearing on the mandate yesterday that Baptists are
“We deem this recent government mandate
as an infringement upon the beliefs and practices of various religious
communities. Therefore, we voice our public objections in solidarity
with those who cherish their religious liberties,” he said. “The
decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to require
virtually all health plans to comply with this mandate will have the
effect of forcing many religious organizations to choose between
following the letter of the law or operating within the framework of
their religious tenets.”
He continued, “We add our voice to the
long list of those who have championed their God-given right to freely
exercise their religious beliefs according to the dictates of their
faith, and to provide compassionate care and clear Christian witness to
society’s most vulnerable, without government encroachment.
“I loathe the partisan nature of this
discussion….I’m here for one reason, I am here because there is a
narrow but very significant provision in HHS [regulations] that is I
believe is very dangerous to religious people with our kind of
convictions and I believe it’s also dangerous to any religious people
who have unique convictions, so that’s why I am here,” Harrisons said.
John Yeats, executive director of the
Missouri Baptist Convention, which includes about 400,000 members,
called the mandate “a frontal attack on our religious liberty” and will
be teaming up with Archbishop Robert J. Carlson and others next month
for a Rally for Religious Liberty at the Missouri State Capitol.
Yeats noted that Missouri Baptist
universities will be forced to deal with a ruling that “seeks to
secularize the institutions of faith we have built for purposes of
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik,Director of the
Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, said
many people of the Jewish faith are also opposed.
“In refusing to extend religious liberty
beyond the parameters of what the administration chooses to deem
religious conduct, the administration denies people of faith the
ability to define their religious activity. Therefore, not only does
the new regulation threaten religious liberty in the narrow sense, in
requiring Catholic communities to violate their religious tenets, but
also the administration impedes religious liberty by unilaterally
redefining what it means to be religious,” he said.
“The President’s spokesman recently when
speaking about this subject said that what their concern is that they
don’t want religious employers or organization restricting access to
specific prescriptions etc. but of course those who have a religious
objection are not seeking in America to restrict their access to it,
what they are seeking is the freedom in their own right not to
facilitate something that violates the tenants of their own faith,”
Laura Champion, M.D., Medical Director,
Calvin College Health Services, said mainline Protestants also oppose
She told the hearing: “Even when
Americans hold vastly different views on the sanctity of life, this
mandate raises a point that should be examined by all: do we value
religious freedom in our country or not? Further, the mandate elevates
contraception and abortive drugs to the level of preventative health
care. They are not. Plan B and Ella should not be considered equivalent
to cancer screening or vaccinations. Pregnancy is not a disease. This
is a premise that I reject both religiously and medically.”
Champion added, “This is not about
politics, this is not about contraception, and this is not about
depriving women of health care. Rather, this is personal. This is about
my daily life as a physician, a Christian, and a Medical Services
Director. Whether I will be able as a physician to practice medicine
within my belief system. Whether Calvin College will be able to
continue its historic tradition of living out the faith it teaches. A
government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people,
should not force the people to violate their consciences.”
The panel that put together the mandate has
been condemned for only having pro-abortion members even though polling
shows Americans are opposed to the mandate.
More than 50
members of Congress banded together at
a press conference to demand legislation to stop the new mandate pro-abortion
President Barack Obama put in place forcing religious employers to
pay for insurance coverage including birth control and
Congressman Jeff Fortenberry held a press
conference with supporters of the bipartisan, bicameral Respect for
Rights of Conscience Act. His legislation would protect the religious
liberty and conscience rights of every American who objects to being
forced by the strong-arm of government to pay for drugs and procedures
recently mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The Fortenberry bill currently has the
support of approximately 220 Members of Congress and Senators, the most
strongly-supported legislative remedy to the controversial HHS mandate.
This measure would repeal the controversial mandate, amending the 2010
health care law to preserve conscience rights for religious
institutions, health care providers, and small businesses who pay for
health care coverage.
H.R. 1179 enjoys the endorsements of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life
Committee, Americans United for Life, and other organizations. Numerous
other organizations, including the Christian Medical Association and
Family Research Council, have urged support of the bill.
Sen. Roy Blunt, a pro-life Missouri
Republican, is putting forward the Blunt Amendment, #1520, again, and
it is termed the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. According to
information provided to LifeNews from pro-life sources on Capitol Hill,
the Blunt Amendment will be the first amendment voted on when the
Senate returns to the transportation bill. The amendment would allow
employers to decline coverage of services in conflict with religious
Republicans are moving swiftly with
legislation, amendments, and potential hearings on the
mandatethe Obama administration has put in place that forces
religious employers to pay for birth control and abortion-inducing
drugs for their employees.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued
a statement saying Obama’s revised mandate involves “needless
government intrusion in the internal governance of religious
institutions” and it urged Congress to overturn the rule and promised a
Meanwhile, the Republican presidential
candidates had been taking verbal swings at Obama for imposing the
original mandate on religious employers, which is not
popular in the latest public opinion poll and which even some
Congressman Steve Scalise has
led a bipartisan letter with 154 co-signers calling on the
Obama Administration to reverse its mandate
forcing religious organizations to include drugs that can cause
abortion and birth control in the health care plans of their employees.
The original mandate was so egregious
that even the normally reliably liberal and pro-abortion USA Today condemned
it in an editorial titled, “Contraception mandate violates
The administration initially
approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting
that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs
that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care
IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the
Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth
control — such as the morning after pill or the ella
drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section
of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative
care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers,
requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances,
drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.
The HHS accepted the IOM guidelines that
“require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive
services” and those services include “FDA-approved contraception
methods and contraceptive counseling” — which include birth control
drugs like Plan B and ella that can cause abortions. The Health and
Human Services Department commissioned the report from the Institute,
which advises the federal government and shut
out pro-life groups in meetings leading up to the recommendations.
Report. You Decide.
The world seen from Rome
Book Points Out Pitfalls of Cohabitation
Shows 'The Ring Makes All The Difference'
Father John Flynn, LC
FEB. 17, 2012 (Zenit.org).- In many countries, cohabitation before
marriage is the norm rather than the exception. This tendency is,
something that increases the risk of martial failure, a recently
The Ring Makes All The Difference: The Hidden Consequences of
and the Strong Benefits of Marriage, (Moody Publishers) Glenn T.
gathers together the results of a large amount of research on
marriage. Stanton is the director for Family Formation Studies at the
organization Focus on the Family.
the United States more than 60% of marriages are preceded by some form
cohabitation, according to data cited by Stanton. This practice is even
marked in second marriages.
is more common among those without a college degree, and among
those who are less religious. Parental divorce, the lack of a father or
levels of conflict between parents are all factors that lead to an
incidence of cohabitation.
considering what motivates young people to cohabit Stanton explained
while the 1960s sexual revolution led some to consider marriage as an
formality that true love did not need, in more recent times couples
shunned marriage due to a fear of failing to live up to its ideals.
of marriageable age today lived through their parent's divorce and
experienced it as a painful moment. Research does show a strong desire
among young people who choose cohabitation and they think that living
before marriage is a good way to avoid a future divorce.
people considering whether cohabitation will prepare them for marriage
not have to wait for answers from their personal experience, Stanton
out. There is already a wealth of research available on the subject.
if couples consider themselves practically married while they cohabit
still know that they are freer to end the relationship compared to
are married. Without what Stanton termed the glue of marriage couples
reluctant to invest time and resources into making the relationship
gives a couple a strong reason to make a personal commitment and
investment to the union between the two. It also integrates the couple
their respective networks of family and friends in a much more solid
have shown that cohabitating couples are more prone to excessive use of
drugs and alcohol and that there are more fights or violence. One study
that the overall rate of violence for cohabiting couples is twice as
for married couples and when it comes to severe violence it is five
drawback to cohabitation is the lack of fidelity. Most couples, says
Stanton, expect sexual faithfulness, whether or not they are married.
studies, however, have found that cohabitors have much higher levels of
infidelity than married couples.
seems that if you want to give someone the experience of sexual
with other partners, cohabitation is what you are looking for, Stanton
research has consistently shown that marriage is a wealth-building
institution cohabitation is quite different. It is not just the uniting
incomes and resources that creates financial benefits, but the
stability of marriage, according to Stanton.
has shown that wealth accumulation in cohabiting couples is closer to
that of singles, rather than reaching the level of married couples.
are more like roommates than a team, Stanton commented.
level of commitment even affects such mundane matters as helping out
the household chores. One study revealed that a married man will spend
eight more hours a week doing domestic work compared with those who
speaking, marriage provides an essential commitment that cohabitation
does not and cannot provide, Stanton stated. That is why researchers
cohabitation to being closer to singleness than to marriage. While
is an ambiguous statement about a couple, marriage, by contrast, is a
statement about the status of the two people, not only to themselves,
to the wider community.
lack of commitment carries over even when a couple that has cohabitated
eventually marries. Far from being a help in seeing if a couple is
marriage, cohabitation prior to marriage increases by 50% to 80% the
of an eventual divorce.
pointed out that sociologists have given a name to this phenomena, the
a clearly defined relationship a cohabiting couple can more easily fall
into the habit of being more controlling and manipulative with each
leads to resentment and mistrust and carries over into married life.
out the product before you buy, as if a future spouse is like some
consumer item, is not the right way to go about ensuring a healthy
Stanton urged. A message that needs to be much more widely spread in
The world seen from Rome
at Congress From US Bishops' Freedom Committee Director
Parable of the Kosher Deli
D.C., FEB. 16, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Here is the testimony of Bishop
William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, on behalf of the United
Conference of Catholic Bishops regarding the Obama administration
on health care coverage for abortifacients, sterilization and
The testimony was given today before the Committee on Oversight
Government Reform of the United States House of Representatives.
you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, for the
opportunity to testify today.
my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The
Parable of the Kosher Deli.”
upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves
must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls
to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but
delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.
Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other
restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new
mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating
the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these
recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They
well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know
the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of
government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs,
those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It
is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many
pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.” Still others
“Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone
in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because
people widely recognize the following.
although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for
you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate.
Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who
they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced
government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a
committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is
the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant.
The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their
held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in
large majorities within the protesting religious community—reject a
religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on
of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority
with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and
diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others
has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government
is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is
objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on
freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no
government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is
ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of
grocers. Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the
itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes
pork away for free.
this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher
demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe
government sanction on the deli. In a nation committed to religious
diversity, the answer, of course, is no.
in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed
committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the
response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the
concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new “accommodation.”
free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham
on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich
hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat
to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve
sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when
your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of
the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will,
course, be required to pay that bill.
who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact
ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu, and didn’t need to be
served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed
troubling things. First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay
for the ham
sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers,
forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to
Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so
mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on
story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd
someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it
absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of
state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when
customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few
question before the United States government—right now—is whether the
of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are
by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to
committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest
possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the
possible terms, to answer the same way.
you for your attention.
13 through 16, 2012
the on-going and
vital debate regarding Obama's decision about "contraceptives",
absolutely no one except the Catholic Church is using the word
"abortion" and "abortifacients"...despite the fact that that
is the central issue.
So, let me offer...and then dismiss...a nice little word to describe
approach by the Obama Administration, by the Media, by Planned
by all the females out there supporting that decision and its cynical
"compromise"; DISINGENUOUS...when the proper term should be LYING
Bill Cosby "I'm 76 and Tired"
This should be required reading for every man, woman
and child in Jamaica,
UK , United States of America , Canada , Australia and New Zealand and
all the world...
76 and I'm Tired"
76. Except for brief period in the 50's when I was doing my National
I've worked hard since I was 17. Except for some some serious
challenges, I put in 50-hour weeks, and didn't call in sick in nearly
years. I made a reasonable salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my
and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, it looks as
retirement was a bad idea, and I'm tired. Very tired.
tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who
have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take
money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy
tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day
read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and
for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight
of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't
of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning
rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the
of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and
law tells them to.
tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must
Arabia and other Arab countries use our oil money to fund mosques
madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in Australia , New Zealand ,
America and Canada , while no one from these countries are allowed to
a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia or any other
country to teach love and tolerance..
tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global
which no one is allowed to debate.
tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help
and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ
out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses
stick a needle in their arm while they tried to fight it off?
tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of all
talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful
when we all know they think their only mistake was getting
I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
really tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives
I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination
big-whatever for their problems.
also tired and fed up with seeing young men and women in their teens
20's be-deck them selves in tattoos and face studs, thereby making
un-employable and claiming money from the Government.
I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 76.. Because, mostly, I'm not
to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for
granddaughter and her children. Thank God I'm on the way
out and not
the way in.
is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us
is your chance to make a difference.
76 and I'm tired."
DIVORCE...AND THE CHILDREN INVOLVED.
The world seen from Rome
and Children: New Study Confirms Irreparable Harm
Up Seen to Weaken All of the 5 Major Institutions of Society
Father John Flynn, LC
FEB. 10, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Each year in the United States over a
children are the innocent parties to the divorce of their parents.
divorce also hurts the parents it is the children who particularly
according to recent research.
findings come in a study published in January by the Marriage and
Research Institute, The Effects of Divorce on Children, by Patrick F.
on a large amount of published research on the effects of divorce,
their paper goes through a series of areas where divorce harms
first one regards parent-child relationships. As would be expected,
affects the ability of parents to relate to their children.
study found that the stress caused by divorce damages the relationship
between children and their mothers for as many as 40% of divorced
insufficiency is more marked by the time children are in high school
practical terms this means that after divorce, children receive less
emotional support, financial assistance, and help from their parents.
also a decrease in academic stimulation, pride, affection, and
social maturity. Fewer toys and more corporal punishment is another
for children of divorced parents.
around 90%, of children remain with their mother following a divorce.
then becomes difficult for the father to maintain close ties, the study
In one study nearly half of the children said they had not seen their
the past year.
aspect covered in the study by Fagan and Churchill is the effect of
divorce on religious practice among children. They found that following
divorce, children are more likely to cease practicing their faith.
lessening of religious practice means that children suffer from a lack
the beneficial effects of religion, in areas as diverse as marital
education, income, and physical and mental health.
section of the study looked at what happens to children's educational
following the divorce of their parents. At the level of elementary
is an immediate decline in academic performance.
high school level children from intact families have significantly
test scores compared to children of divorced parents. One example in
was that by the age of 13 there is an average difference of half a year
reading ability between children of divorced parents and children from
research cited included a study that found children from divorced
families were 26% more likely to drop out of secondary school compared
children brought up in intact families. Moreover, even if a divorced
re-married this did not remove the negative impact of the initial
children's academic results.
divorce penalty extends up to college. Fagan and Churchill reported one
study that found only 33% of students from divorced families graduate
college, compared to 40% of those from intact families.
the impact on education, not unexpectedly those affected by the divorce
of their parents also have a lower income and assets and a greater
of experiencing economic hardship.
social impact of divorce was another aspect discussed by Fagan and
Churchill. Divorce not only imposes costs on families but also on
and society. Children of divorced families are considerably more likely
engage in delinquent behavior, to be involved in fighting, robberies,
wreaks havoc on the psychological stability of many children, the study
found. It referred to research carried out on seventh and eighth grade
that showed parental divorce was the third most stressful life event of
of 125 life events. It was only surpassed by the death of a parent or
well, this psychological impact is not passing. Even as adults, those
experienced divorce as children experience more emotional and
problems compared to those from intact families.
levels of child abuse and neglect are further consequences of divorce.
One study carried out in Brazil found that children in step-families
stepfathers were 2.7 times more likely to be abused than children in
biologically intact households.
concluding section of the study commented that unlike the divorced
who can often find relief following separation, children's suffering
long after divorce. In fact, its effects continue for decades, as long
has pervasive weakening effects on children and on all of the five
major institutions of society -- the family, the church, the school,
marketplace, and government itself, Fagan and Churchill concluded.
the high level of divorce in recent times these debilitating
will continue to be played out in the years to come. Not a comforting
as Western society continues to witness continued attacks on family
attempts to re-define marriage.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OBAMA'S ANSWER TO A BASIC MORAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE:
AN ACCOUNTING GIMMICK. STAY TUNED.
The world seen from Rome
Bishops: Obama's 'Compromise' Has No Clear Protection for Key
Proposal Continues to Involve Needless Government Intrusion
D.C., FEB. 10, 2012 (Zenit.org).- The U.S. bishops say the proposal
made today by President Barack Obama's administration regarding the
cover abortifacients, sterilization and contraception continues to
needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious
institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people
groups to violate their most deeply held convictions.
proposal came after widespread and energetic condemnation of the Jan.
20 announcement that employers must include abortifacients in the
plans offered to their employees as part of preventative care.
Catholic bishops have long supported access to life-affirming
for all, and the conscience rights of everyone involved in the complex
of providing that healthcare, the bishops' statement began. That is why
raised two serious objections to the 'preventive services' regulation
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in August 2011,
confirmed Jan. 20.]
the other mandated 'preventive services' prevent disease, and pregnancy
not a disease, they observed. Moreover, forcing plans to cover
violates existing federal conscience laws. Therefore, we called for the
rescission of the mandate altogether.
the prelates explained, they opposed the burden placed on the
of insurers forced to write policies including this coverage; employers
schools forced to sponsor and subsidize the coverage; and individual
and students forced to pay premiums for the coverage.
therefore urged HHS, if it insisted on keeping the mandate, to provide
conscience exemption for all of these stakeholders -- not just the
small subset of 'religious employers' that HHS proposed to exempt
communiqué then explains what the president's proposal today
he has decided to retain HHS's nationwide mandate of insurance coverage
of sterilization and contraception, including some abortifacients. This
unsupported in the law and remains a grave moral concern. We cannot
reiterate this, even as so many would focus exclusively on the question
the President has announced some changes in how that mandate will be
administered, which is still unclear in its details.
bishops said that a preliminary study of the proposal indicates that it
would still mandate that all insurers must include coverage for the
objectionable services in all the policies they would write. At this
would appear that self-insuring religious employers, and religious
companies, are not exempt from this mandate. It would allow non-profit,
religious employers to declare that they do not offer such coverage.
employee and insurer may separately agree to add that coverage. The
would not have to pay any additional amount to obtain this coverage,
coverage would be provided as a part of the employer's policy, not as a
U.S. bishops said that these changes need careful moral analysis and
moreover, appear subject to some measure of change.
they stated, we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection
key stakeholders -- for self-insured religious employers; for religious
secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for
insurers; and for individuals -- is unacceptable and must be corrected.
the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable
coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting
plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by
objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.
bishops said that parts of the information on Obama's proposal are in
writing and other elements have only been explained orally.
will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience
can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the
we note that today's proposal continues to involve needless government
intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to
government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their
held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its
founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within
parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty
problem is for
HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.
FRIDAY, February 10, 2012
SUE THE BASTARDS!
The world seen from Rome
Taking Obama Administration to Court
Health Care Ruling Provides Only 2 Choices, Both Unacceptable
Alabama, FEB. 9, 2012 (Zenit.org).- The EWTN Global Catholic Network
filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Health and Human
and other government agencies, seeking to stop the imposition of a
will force Catholic institutions to pay for contraception,
abortifacient drugs in employee health care plans.
is the first Catholic organization to file suit since the final HHS
were published by the Obama administration on Jan. 20.
had no other option but to take this to the courts, said EWTN President
CEO Michael P. Warsaw in a statement. Under the HHS mandate, EWTN is
forced by the government to make a choice: either we provide employees
for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and
conscience or offer our employees and their families no health
coverage at all. Neither of those choices is acceptable.
lawsuit was filed on EWTN's behalf by Mark Rienzi, Kyle Duncan and Erik
Kniffin from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
are taking this action to defend not only ourselves but also to protect
other institutions -- Catholic and non-Catholic, religious and secular
having this mandate imposed upon them, Warsaw continued. The government
EWTN, first, to inform its employees about how to get contraception,
sterilization and abortifacient drugs, a concept known as forced
make the matter worse, the government then will force EWTN to use its
funds to pay for these same morally objectionable procedures or to pay
huge fines it will levy against us if we fail to provide health care
There is no question that this mandate violates our First Amendment
This is a moment when EWTN, as a Catholic organization, has to step up
that enough is enough. Our hope is that our lawsuit does just that.
Becket Fund previously filed similar lawsuits on behalf of Belmont
College, a small Catholic liberal arts college in Belmont, North
Carolina, and Colorado
Christian University, an interdenominational Christian liberal arts
near Denver. Both suits were filed prior to the HHS rules being
February 8, 2012
Love means to a 4-8 year old...
down for three minutes to read this. It is so worth it.
words from the mouth of babes..
group of professional people posed this question to a group of 4 to 8
does love mean?'
answers they got were broader and deeper than anyone could have
what you think:
my grandmother got arthritis , she couldn't bend over and paint her
toenails anymore.. So my grandfather does it for her all the time ,
even when his hands got arthritis too. That's love.'
someone loves you , the way they say your name is different.
just know that your name is safe in their mouth.'
- age 4
is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on shaving cologne and
they go out and smell each other.'
- age 5
is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your French fries
without making them give you any of theirs.'
- age 6
is what makes you smile when you're tired.'
- age 4
is when my mommy makes coffee for my daddy and she takes a sip before
giving it to him , to make sure the taste is OK.'
- age 7
is when you kiss all the time. Then when you get tired of kissing , you
still want to be together and you talk more. My Mommy and Daddy are
look gross when they kiss'
- age 8
is what's in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening
- age 7 (Wow!)
you want to learn to love better , you should start with a friend who
you hate , '
- age 6
need a few million more Nikka's on this planet)
is when you tell a guy you like his shirt , then he wears it everyday.'
- age 7
is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still friends
even after they know each other so well.'
- age 6
my piano recital , I was on a stage and I was scared. I looked at all
the people watching me and saw my daddy waving and smiling.
was the only one doing that. I wasn't scared anymore.'
- age 8
mommy loves me more than anybody
don't see anyone else kissing me to sleep at night.'
- age 6
is when Mommy gives Daddy the best piece of chicken.'
is when Mommy sees Daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he is
handsomer than Robert Redford .'
- age 7
is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone all
Ann - age 4
know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old clothes
and has to go out and buy new ones.'
- age 4
you love somebody , your eyelashes go up and down and little stars come
out of you.' (what an image)
- age 7
is when Mommy sees Daddy on the toilet and she doesn't think it's
- age 6
really shouldn't say 'I love you' unless you mean it. But if you mean
it , you should say it a lot. People forget.'
- age 8
the final one
winner was a four year old child whose next door neighbor was an
elderly gentleman who had recently lost his wife.
seeing the man cry , the little boy went into the old gentleman's yard
, climbed onto his lap , and just sat there.
his Mother asked what he had said to the neighbor , the little boy said
, I just helped him cry'
there is nothing left but God , that is when you find out that God is
all you need. Take 60 seconds and give this a shot! All you do is
simply say the following small prayer for the person who sent you this.
Father , please bless all my friends in whatever it is that You know
they may be needing this day! And may their life be full of Your peace
, prosperity and power as he/she seeks to have a closer relationship
with You. Amen.
SUNDAY, February 5, 2012
Perkins: It's good to be king
Thomas S. Perkins, Random Ramblings
Publication: The Times
Published 02/02/2012 12:00 AM
A parable of the New Oz.
Once upon a time in the New Oz, the
Emerald City by the Sea, there came to pass a new law, whereas the Old
Council of Oz and its administrator were replaced by a powerful king,
Finnochio The Just.
Now King Finnochio was a true and honest
king and was happy to take his place in the history books as the first
king of New Oz. He was so happy with the thoughts of replacing the old
type of government that he started announcing new dictates, some even
before he was inaugurated, for it is good to be king.
He ruffled some feathers of the nearby
neighbor the Ancient Mariner Academy, whose realm within the kingdom of
Oz was sovereign property, answering only to the great emperor in
Washington, D.C. and not subject to the king's pronouncements.
The academy wanted to purchase some of
the New Oz property, but, alas, the king sayeth "No way," no matter
what our citizens want. "Forsooth" cried the mariners, we will
negotiate with some of our other nearby neighbors to find space for our
expansion. After much ado, the king was invited to visit the Ancient
Mariner Academy and to speak with the emperor's representative, and to
arrange for further talks, and an uneasy peace once again settled over
the Emerald City by The Sea.
Now a further pronouncement by the king
settled a small fortune on his general of the king's guard, Lady
Alkali. Finnochio, saying "Yea and verily," it's good to be king,
settled upon her a gift of three horses, five goats and six chickens,
in answer to her claim of being harassed by a former member of the
Council of Oz, Sir Michael of Bushwarts.
"Yoicks" cried the council, and upon
deliberation, rescinded this proclamation, finding that the king was
not so all-powerful as he had first thought. Now, during all this
commotion, the general of the guard also lost three of her top captains
of the guard, hence leaving the king's guard in turmoil.
Some say this was to her liking and some
say not. As for Lady Alkali, she has remained silent on the subject,
obviously not a politician. At this same time the king exiled the clerk
of the kingdom and his assistant, leaving the kingdom's paperwork in
disarray. It is good to be king!
The king, it has been rumored, has many
more ideas for the Emerald City; he may propose the addition of the
king's horse guard, with the steeds to be stabled in the municipal
parking garage, with the stable cleaning assigned to the Council of Oz.
Also on the back burner might be a
jousting festival to be held in the new skating rink next to the
whale's tail, where the king would have the additional title of grand
marshal. But, alas, the king has found it to be prudent to run his
ideas before the Council of Oz before making any new statements. But,
it's still good to be king!
Meanwhile, in the nearby hamlet of
Watercress, the people shake their heads in awe and envy, saying, "How
come they have all the fun? It really must be good to be king!"
Now, after all this, the somewhat subdued
king sits in his tower, pondering what new and exciting pronouncements
he can issue to keep the good citizens of New Oz happy. After all, it
is good to be king!
THIS IS THE OPINION OF THOMAS S.
PERKINS, A RETIRED ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE AND A WATERFORD RESIDENT. HE
CAN BE REACHED AT TNGPERK@SBCGLOBAL.NET
IMMORAL. "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID !"
Two developments that have occurred during the last two weeks have
once again the long-standing festering wound which is now turning into
First, the Obama administration promulgated a Federal Law that would
Catholics and Catholic institutions to provide abortion-causing drugs
of their health ministries - totally in opposition to Catholic teaching
Catholic conscience. This, a direct attack on Constitutional
Religion, was never reported in the craven lay press as involving
only "contraception" and "womens' health". This was
immediately attacked by U.S. Catholic Bishops, by the clergy of other
and by their laity. It will lead to a prolonged legislative and
battle that will further distort our body politic in this watershed
beyond, as the topic has done since the immoral and unconstitutional
Roe v Wade
decision. In any case, "This will not stand".
Secondly, the action and then reaction of the Komen foundation
Planned Parenthood was obviously founded on the actions of the Abortion
outlet that is Planned Parenthood...but never acknowledged by either
this tawdry spectacle.
This sequence demonstrates two things. First, that a very large segment
females (a gender, not the honored status of "women") continue to
condone and to practice the killing of an incontrovertibly human being
their own narcissistic "freedom". For that, I can only recall
the Biblical admonition: "Vengeance Is Mine, Sayeth the Lord.
Second, that the Internet and its progeny have re-introduced a new age
rule. For that, the rest of us will have to
And then there is the effect, present and future, on the national and
economy for many decades to come. The article posted below
The world seen from Rome
Fertility and Economic Crisis
Father John Flynn, LC
FEB. 3, 2012 (Zenit.org).- Sustainable development is the imperative of
the 21st century and cannot be achieved without improving reproductive
words expressed at a recent executive board meeting by UNFPA executive
Babatunde Osotimehin, according to a Feb. 1 press release.
is the United Nations' agency responsible for promoting family
including contraceptives and access to abortion. Reducing fertility is,
according to the director, key to ensuring economic success.
this is an affirmation increasingly contradicted by events. Japan is
the clearest examples of this. The latest official figures show that
population is projected to fall by 30%, to below 90 million, by 2060.
that date those aged 14 or under will be less than 8 million, compared
million aged 65 or older, Reuters reported, Jan. 30.
fertility rate, the expected number of children born per couple, is
expected to reach 1.35 in 2060 from 1.39 in 2010, well below the 2.08
keep the population from shrinking.
projections are based on the 2010 census and there were three
moderate, optimistic and pessimistic, made by the National Institute of
Population and Social Security Research, according to a report
31 by the Daily Yomiuri Online.
forecast released corresponds to the moderate estimate and will see
of the population being 65 or over by 2060.
before the latest figures came out there was widespread concern over
economic implications of Japan's low fertility rate. Moreover, what is
happening in Japan is a foretaste of what will occur in other mature
Jan. 12 report by Reuters cited Ajay Kapur, a strategist for Deutsche
Hong Kong, as saying that stock markets are worried about demographic
almost every developed market.
said it would be a crucial error to think that Japan's economic
in the last two decades was something unique.
the next five years, all of the 18 developed countries for which
has property market data going back more than half a century will see a
in their working age population ratios, the Reuters article noted.
combination of fewer people in the workforce and high levels of
leads to a very adverse economic environment, Kapur warned.
aging population means that a serious reform of the social security and
systems will be needed in Japan, said Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu
a press conference held Monday, according to a Feb. 1 report by the
1960 one retiree was supported by 11.2 workers. In 2010, one retiree
supported by only 2.8 workers. By 2060, it is expected there will be
workers per retiree.
other countries are struggling to deal with the consequences of a
below-replacement fertility rate.
president Ma Ying-jeou, warned that the country's lack of children is
a serious national security threat, the Guardian newspaper reported,
1951, the average Taiwanese woman had seven children. In 2010, the
rate was 0.89. While currently about 14 of the population is over 65,
number could double in just a couple of decades.
seven working people support one retiree, but by 2045 this will have
plummeted to just 1.45, according to the Guardian report.
ageing means declining labor input and, in the long term, suggests
population will fall, which will slow the economy, said Ma Tieying, an
economist at DBS Bank in Singapore.
warning came in a report on the dire economic implications of low
in Taiwan published Jan. 25 by Bloomberg Businessweek
expert who recently spoke out on the issue is Sarah Harper, director of
the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, University of Oxford. She
the European Union will see an average increase of 23% in pension costs
middle of the century, according to a Jan. 31 report by the Independent
greatest pressure, however, will not be on Europe, but on Asian and
American countries that are also experiencing rapid declines in
Europe, Harper pointed out, has had over a century to adapt to these
but most developing nations will have just one generation.
rapid decline in Latin America, in part thanks to the programs
the United Nations, is evident in two recent examples.
Jan. 25 report published by Prensa Latina said that it is likely the
population will be in decline by 2025. According to Juan Carlos
director of the Population and Development Research Center, by that
time 26% of
the population will be in their sixth decade.
a Jan. 15 report by U.S. National Public Radio, said that from an
average of six children per woman 50 years ago Brazil now has a lower
rate than the United States, at 1.9 per woman.
rapid and dramatic declines will inevitably bring about severe economic
and budgetary problems, a far cry from sustainable development.
FRIDAY, February 3, 2012
BUSH 41 SAID, AS
RICK SANTORUM HAS REPORTEDLY SAID, AND AS I NOW SAY: THIS WILL NOT
Memo to the
To the Members of the United States
Catholic Conference of Bishops:
It may have taken a few days to sink in,
but by now you should all have realized that President Obama has opened
a massive assault on the Roman Catholic Church in America the likes of
which none of you have ever experienced and for which few of you have
My guess is only a handful of you
believed it could come to this. This is America, after all, where the
"first freedom" listed in the First Amendment is religious freedom.
When next you gather you might usefully conduct a poll as to how many
really believed such a thing could happen.
Most of you are good men, and some
extremely good men, but you have never been in a struggle with the
government the likes of which your brothers in other places have
endured. The American government has always been at least an ally of
the Church's social teachings, right? Sure, there is the problem of
some Democrats pushing for late-term abortions, and of some academics
arguing that the tax exempt status of all churches is an
unconstitutional "establishment of religion."
But you just laughed off the idea that
the government could actually threaten your very existence.
That is, however, what has happened with
"What came down was the most sweeping and
restrictive set of regulations that we’ve seen,” Atlanta
Archbishop Wilton Gregory said of the new Health and Human Services
Department regulations mandating that all health insurance plans
provide for contraception, including sterilization and the "morning
"We cannot --we will not-- comply with
this unjust law, declared Archbishop Olmsted in Phoenix, in a
bold letter to his flock that implied what former
United States Senator Rick Santorum openly declared the only option on
my radio program Wednesday: "Civil disobedience." Here is my full
exchange with Senator Satorum on the subject:
HH: I read the letter from
Archbishop Olmsted of Phoenix on the air. Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los
Angeles has written a new article in First Things. It’s shocking,
actually, what’s going on. Should this be a centerpiece of whoever the
nominee’s campaign is?
RS: I talked about it in every
speech I’ve given today. And here’s what I said, though, Hugh. I said
that I took issue with the Catholic Bishops Conference, because Hugh,
you may remember, they embraced Obamacare.
RS: They embraced it and
said…here’s what I said to them. Be careful when you have government
saying that they can give you rights, that you have a right to health
care, and government’s going to give you something, because once you
are now dependant on government, they, not only can they take that
right away, they can tell you how to exercise that right, and you can
either like it or not. And that’s the problem. That’s what the Catholic
Bishops Conference didn’t get, that there’s no free lunch here, folks.
If you’re going to give people secular power, then they’re going to use
it in a secular fashion. And that’s why, you know, I hate to say it,
but you know, you had it coming. And it’s time to wake up and realize
that government isn’t the answer to the social ills. It’s people of
faith, and it’s families, and it’s communities, and it’s charities that
need to do this as it has in America so successfully for so long.
HH: Rick Santorum, what do you
advise Catholic hospitals, Catholic colleges, Catholic…the centers of
poverty assistance, the adoption agencies? What do you advise them to
do in the face of, as Archbishop Olmsted said, we cannot comply with
this unjust law?
RS: Civil disobedience. This will
not stand. There’s no way they can make this stand. The Supreme Court,
eventually, this thing’s going to get to the Supreme Court just like
the ministerial hiring issue that was just decided by the Supreme Court
the other day. And it was a 9-0 decision that said the Obama
administration can’t roll over people of faith when it comes to hiring.
Yet in the face of that decision, this radical, secular government of
Barack Obama continues to have faith be the least important of the 1st
Amendment. And I just think they fight. They fight in the courts, and
they fight by civil disobedience, and go to war with the federal
government over this one.
Talk about tough love. Senator Santorum
says it straight, and the taste is bitter. You were played. The left
took your support for nationalizing health care and repaid your support
with a conscience-enslaving requirement that the Roman Catholic Church
pay for contraception, sterilization and "the morning-after pill."
Give it a year. The president's
appointees will have you paying for abortions. That or pay the price of
What that price might be is still vague.
Fines and penalties? Loss of tax exempt status? Who knows? But keep in
mind that this gang blindsided you on the regs, and they will work with
Eric Holder's Department of Justice to blindside you on the enforcement
as well. Payback time for all those Right to Life Marches and the
controversies over who should receive the Eucharist.
To paraphrase the old saying, "Paybacks
are (on the road to) Hell."
The central question is what will you do,
and not next quarter or even next month, but right now? Sure, the
letters went out, and appeals to the faithful have been made. Lawsuits
are probably being explored. (They ought to have been filed yesterday,
in the federal district court in the D.C. Circuit. Time's a wasting.)
But what are you going to do in the realm
of politics. This isn't even a question of defending your own Church
but of your duty to defend the unborn and the right of conscience and
the free exercise of faith.
There is one step you must take.
You have to consider issuing a
declaration obliging American Roman Catholics of good conscience to
vote against the re-election of the president and every member of his
party at every level. Do you want the regulations revoked? Then this is
what you must do, and soon.
The Manhattan-Beltway elite media will
shriek. The professional atheists and their allies who are your
long-time opponents will scream. But if you are serious about your job
of defending the faith, this is what you must do.
Whatever you decide to do, you need a
media strategy much better than the one deployed in fits and starts
across the country. Most Catholics are even now unaware of what just
happened. Letters from the pulpit? That's it?
A suggestion: Task a cross section of
senior bishops from cross the country, say Archbishop Dolan of New
York, Chaput of Philadelphia, Olmsted of Phoenix and Gomez of Los
Angeles, and dispatch them on a tour of many cities, at each stop
holding a press conference and explaining what has happened and how
they will be back with the specific resolutions adopted by the
"[Go to war with the federal government
over this one," is how Senator Santorum put it, by which of course he
meant the sort of non-violent war that Occupy protestors excel at
before they become violent.
The bad news is that you are very timid
by nature, lulled into complacency by a tradition of religious freedom
that didn't exist when Charles Carroll risked all his massive land and
wealth to sign the Declaration of Independence.
You are far from media savvy, and you are
afraid of offending some Democrats in the pews. Get over it, or get
over the Church's teachings, as it really has come down to a choice
that cannot be postponed.
This is not your father's Democratic
Party. This isn't even your Democratic Party, those of you who grew up
proud of John F. Kennedy and even happy proponents of the Bishops'
letters of the 1980s castigating Ronald Reagan on economics and defense
These people want to destroy you, and
behind their soft smiles and long meetings and densely-written
regulations, there is an agenda, and your submission to the cultural
values of the left is on it. Where was the president when this went on?
Do you really think he didn't sign off on this? Has he returned any of
your calls? Did you even try to call him?
Or did some in your number immediately
set about figuring out why there was nothing you could do?
Understand, you could have this
regulation pulled in a matte of days or weeks. But you would have to be
bold, blunt and unwilling to "compromise." And you would have to go
public against the president.
So, are you shepherds, or not? If so,
protect your flocks.
- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a HOT AND SOUR SOUP of domestic issues.
After all the discussion about our being the Shining Beacon on the
being the world leader, about being "exceptional"...:THE FIRST RULE
OF SERVICE IS SURVIVAL. And that survival, as a robust and
nation recognizable to Americans, is no longer a given. This is
the opinion of Rick Santorum, the Casandra of Republican candidates for
President, but the thesis of many books on the subject. Two of
"GREEDY BASTARDS!", by Dylan Ratigan;
"THE AGE OF AUSTERITY", by Thomas Byrne Edsall.
The elections of 2012 will represent a true watershed moment in our
A second term for Barack Obama may well produce a revolution, civil or
otherwise. The election of a Republican candidate anointed,
paid for by the Establishment (read "status quo") forces, will result
in a critical loss of time in which to restore the nation's direction -
probably with permanent consequences.
Yes, the prime goal must be to unseat this President in November.
Republicans and Independents must choose their candidate wisely.
choice continues to be Newt Gingrich, a man of great intellect,
experience and reform-minded determination who could beat Obama and who
make the changes necessary to restore America to Americans.
And now for some specifics:
let's read and re-read the Declaration of
Independence and the U.S. Constitution. We have departed
from many of those principles and laws...to our great detriment. WAKE
Enterprise is not synonymous with the unfetter march of robber barons.
Wall Street must be kept transparent and under some effective
regulations. The first time I heard of "derivatives" coming out
of Wall Street in the early 1990's, I knew that such bets belonged in
Las Vegas and not there. And now we learn that even Freddy Mack
was betting on mortgages defaulting while offering mortgages to people
who had no business being considered for many of those
wheelers and dealers who broke existing laws should be prosecuted and
jailed. Those firms that made and lost reckless bets with their
clients' money should be allowed to fail...no matter how large.
- The same
rules regarding "insider trading" should apply to our fearless leaders
in Washington, a concept which is a no-brainer...except for the morally
referring to the "morally challenged", our system of elections has
deteriorated into a form aptly described by Irma Bombeck, wherein: "An
organization is like a cesspool: the truly big pieces float to the
top". We must demand a U.S. Constitutional Convention to consider
and refer to the States new Amendments addressing Election financing,
Federal term limits and the legal position of Corporations - especially
now that many corporations have become international and thus quasi -
Federal Bureaucracy, that behemoth of self-perpetuating administrators
who not only implement laws but who often modify and distort the intent
of those laws, must be reformed consistent with the needs of a true
- The "very
poor" don't need a "safety net"...they need a pick and shovel and a
task to perform. Before all, they need a basic and relevant
education - which they are not getting in our failed and cynical Public
Education monopoly. And yet they support overwhelmingly the
Democratic Party, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Teachers' Unions.
Is this Idiocy...or What??
"Middle Class" cannot expect to continue in the same job as their
fathers and grandfathers, just "because". They must become and
remain relevant to the needs of current society...not of the society of
50 or 100 years ago. That means education, training, re-education
and re-training...for life.
globalization has not worked for this country...except for the many
mega-corporations that exported our jobs and opportunities to
other countries at great profit for their shareholders. Of
course, the same "middle class" citizens who lost their jobs to these
actions continue to provide the demand for the cheap, often inferior
and sometimes toxic products from these foreign countries. Is
there a message here?
- If we are
to participate in a global economy, the rules must reflect a level
playing field, far from the current situation. Otherwise, let's
have a decade of "Fortress America" to debride and heal our national
- The only
rule for our participation in foreign affairs must be NATIONAL
SELF-INTEREST, including pre-emptive self-defense against credible
threats from whatever source. And that must not include actions
that only help our home-based but international corporate
interests. Our dependence on Middle East oil, and corporate
efforts to continue that dependence in the face of domestic
alternatives, is a case in point.
- We must
solve the Immigration Problem. We can do that by dividing the
problem into two parts: the current part that we Americans had a large
part in causing - by producing a great magnet for cheap labor and for
illicit drugs; and the future part, to be controlled by our needs as a
nation - and not by the needs and desires of others. The Dream Act is a
step in the right direction for addressing the first part; and dropping
the perjorative term "Amnesty" would be another. Strict control
of all our international borders, with the Army if necessary, is the
first step to addressing the second, in addition to shutting the above
magnets with enforced laws...currently not at all the case.
and restoring the ruptured moral fiber of this Nation should be an
imperative. It must start with the family. It most be supported
and encouraged in the schools. It must involve choosing and
espousing moral / ethical goals carefully and then fighting all-out for
those goals. The current scatter-gun approach of the Far Right,
the Evangelicals and the religious Fundamentalists, is self-defeating.
(c) Copyright 1999-2017, Allergy Associates of New London, PC