Blue Ridge Mountains in Winter
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism. Show all posts

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Lindsey Graham: Socialist Ratcheteer

Hannity interview illustrates GOP’s real problem.


It all began so innocently.

Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and newly minted if long-shot 2016 presidential candidate, sat down with NBC’s Chuck Todd for an interview. Riding along in the back seat of (presumably) an SUV, the two discuss Graham’s presidential ambition. Todd poses a question wondering about what Graham thinks of the country’s current state of polarization. In a bit of a windy answer Graham blames talk radio, cable TV, and money. Then he tosses the kind of political flare that rarely gets tossed in today’s carefully restrained and tailored-for-public-consumption politics.

To illustrate his point, Graham conjures a scene of modern media covering the Constitutional Convention in 1787 Philadelphia, replete with satellite trucks surrounding Independence Hall and Ben Franklin exiting the building only to be besieged by Fox’s Sean Hannity and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Translation: the two hosts are polarizing.

Hannity picked up on this, inviting Graham on his television show to discuss. Fatefully, Graham agreed. And in the doing (seen here) Graham quickly proceeded to illustrate exactly the problem that faces the Republican Party and the nation.

Read more at The American Spectator >>

 

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Daniel Hannan: 'Hitler Was A Socialist'

Here is our favorite statesman, the brilliant Daniel Hannan, discussing the socialist economic philosophy shared by Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx and Barack Hussein Obama, and its far more bountiful alternative, capitalism, which has underpinned freedom throughout the Anglosphere.


Friday, February 28, 2014

Leftists Become Incandescent When Reminded of the Socialist Roots of Nazism

By Daniel Hannan
You can't accuse the NSDAP of downplaying the "Socialist" bit

On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der echte Sozialismus”: real socialism.

Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist. He understood Nazism to be a better and more plausible form of socialism than that propagated by Lenin. Instead of spreading itself across different nations, it would operate within the unit of the Volk.

So total is the cultural victory of the modern Left that the merely to recount this fact is jarring. But few at the time would have found it especially contentious. As George Watson put it in The Lost Literature of Socialism:
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.
The clue is in the name. Subsequent generations of Leftists have tried to explain away the awkward nomenclature of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party as either a cynical PR stunt or an embarrassing coincidence. In fact, the name meant what it said.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Patrick Buchanan: End of the Line for the Welfare State?

 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

The Congressional Budget Office did not exactly say Obamacare would cost the nation 2.5 million jobs.

But what it did say is vindication of what conservatives have preached since Barry Goldwater stood in the pulpit 50 years ago:

The more liberal the welfare state, the greater the disincentive to work and the more ruinous the impact upon a nation’s work ethic.

The CBO has just given us a statistical measure of that truth.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Obama and the Infernal Serpent

From American Thinker


The president may not be aware of it, but envy has always been regarded as a sin.  Envy of the rich is actually one of the seven "deadly sins," according to Christian belief.  The idea that envy is "deadly" is so deeply rooted in Western civilization that only a politician profoundly ignorant of that tradition, or dismissive of it, would fail to regard envy as wrong. 

For the ancients, envy was such a harmful instinct that it was represented as a mythological figure of destruction.  One of the earliest Greek writings, Hesiod's Works and Days, describes envy as nasty-mouthed, physically repulsive, and rejoicing in human suffering.  It is the sort of evil that Hesiod associated it with the decline of civilization ruled by a corrupt race of "iron" men (not the gold or silver of the past).  Even 2,800 years ago, it was understood that envy is an evil that arises in the late stages of great civilizations, when political life begins to focus on how to redistribute goods rather than how to produce more goods.  Great writers have always understood this fact.   

Friday, October 21, 2011

The Revolutionary Communist Party's Little Yellow Book

"The Socialist Constitution is a disturbing read, breathtaking in the brutality of the totalitarian measures proposed, a trip down the rabbit hole of the twisted American Communist mind."

By Peter Wilson

Four days after the first occupiers arrived on Wall Street in September, the Harvard Crimson student newspaper offered editorial space to a Maoist fringe group called the Revolutionary Communist Party. The article by RCP spokesman Ray Lotta urged replacing the U.S. Constitution with the Constitution of the New Socialist Republic in North America, which has been published as a 91-page book with a yellow cover.

The RCP is not an underground organization. RCP Chairman Bob Avakian, the author of the Constitution, is in exile in Paris, but the RCP openly operates Revolution Bookstores in sixteen American cities, including Cambridge, Berkeley, New York, and Seattle, and is the publisher of Revolution magazine. Recently they were involved in creating the radical organizations Not in our Name and World Can't Wait, and according to Discover the Networks, the RCP played an instrumental role in sparking the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

Monday, August 30, 2010

What the Popes Have to Say About Socialism

One could easily get the impression from the corrupt and bloated bureaucracy that is the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, that the Church not only supports the platform of the Democrat Party, but enthusiastically embraces the socialism at the root of its policies. However, Church teaching has consistently condemned socialism since the time of Marx. Indeed, the Church proclaims the doctrine of subsidiarity -- affirming that all social bodies exist for the benefit of the individual, and that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over.

The Church was a believer in private initiative and small, accountable government before there was a Republican Party.

Tradition, Family and Property has recently posted what the Popes have had to say on this subject over the past 150 years.

The documents quoted should be required reading in every Catholic school, and should be familiar to every Catholic adult.


Friday, August 13, 2010

Outed! Congresswoman Member of Socialist Group

President Obama also closely tied to Marxist-oriented organization


From WorldNetDaily
By Aaron Klein

Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Ohio, was listed as a member of a U.S.-based socialist organization, it has emerged.

President Obama himself has been closely tied to the same organization, the Marxist-oriented Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA.

Multiple editions of the socialist group's official newsletter, the Democratic Left, listed Kilroy as a DSA member in the 1990s and described how other DSA activists helped with her various campaigns. The newsletters were first posted online by Trevor Loudon of the New Zeal blog, a researcher of communism.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Leo XIII Decried Socialism, 150 Years Later The USCCB Embraces It

"The socialists wrongly assume the right of property to be of mere human invention . . . and, preaching up the community of goods, declare that ... all may with impunity seize upon the possessions and usurp the rights of the wealthy. More wise and profitably, the Church recognizes the existence of inequality amongst men."

—Leo XIII, Dec. 28, 1878

From Pew Sitter
By Frank Walker


Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, founder of the excellent CatholicCulture.org,
was surprised by the “bitterness” he found from readers responding to the Bishops’ support of extended unemployment benefits last week. He presses the need for some “cautions” and “perspective” particularly when we begin to denounce the Bishops as socialists. He insists that we be ‘very careful in using this term” and not resort to “inaccurate name-calling.” Why are the bishops not socialists? According to Mirus it is because they never have advocated the state ownership of private means of production.

This incomplete defense is followed by a lengthy and abstract discussion on balancing solidarity and subsidiarity, building “intermediary” institutions, correcting the tax structure, pursuing the “twin goals of stimulating the production or wealth and preventing the marginalization of those who fall behind;” and patient acceptance with the way things are until something better can be created. “Conservative Catholics need to recognize that it is not wrong in Catholic social theory to engage government in fostering the economic common good. ” Here we must wonder where a conservative may disagree. Would they be against the ‘economic common good,” or just against re-distributionist confiscation and its uniformly negative results?

This familiar lullaby is epidemic in faithful Catholic intellectual circles. It grows mainly out of pride and a misunderstanding of the social justice writing of Leo XIII, Chesterton, and the Distributists. Such destructive thinking needs to be addressed as it runs contrary to natural law and the laws of God. Furthermore the Bishops, as they manifest culturally and politically via the USCCB, are not only socialists, but function regularly as statist agents. They do not shout for socialism; they just enact it and applaud its ongoing construction. They should be assessed not by what they advocate, but by what they achieve and destroy.

Mirus predictably goes on to say that there is no place for the wrong kind of rhetoric in this “legitimate debate” and that we should approach the discussion as “Catholics,” and not as conservatives or liberals. This tired approach, which draws a moral equivalency between capitalism and socialism, only exists to drag Catholics and others leftward toward oppression and despair. The article’s thesis on growing the correct types of “intermediary” institutions to replace federal programs first; smacks of Friedrick Hayek’s utopian “planners” People do not need new kinds of well-conceived institutions in America. They need freedom and the Church needs faith.

Dr. Mirus urges that Catholics respect the correct role of the state to care for the poor and the needy, and that conservative Catholics be charitable. He tells us that “It is simply not possible to be a Catholic while embracing a morally-deficient conservatism.”

This somewhat veiled condemnation of right and left alike, handed down by Catholic thinkers over the last two centuries, must be unpacked then scrapped. If capitalism “makes no provision for charity” it is because it simply trumpets freedom, leaving people to do as they may and as they must. Capitalism should not even be an “ism,” as socialism is. It is just what happens when you leave people to their own lives and property. It does not contradict Church teaching, it is simply a necessary component of it, as freedom is necessary to salvation.

Free “capitalist,” individuals are still compelled to charity in the name of Christ. That has nothing to do with government. It’s like blaming public schools for not giving out better free lunches and daycare. That is not their role and the failure is not theirs. Discussions of give and take in economic systems are not within the subject of charity; which is the purview of free human beings and the associations they freely create.

The oppression that the Distributists ascribe to capitalism is really just the collusion of business titans and big government. Ubiquitous corporate empires which destroy families and property then marginalize the poor, are not the natural course of free people in a free society. Furthermore, they were never an aspect of Christendom, where true charity was a holy institution and subsidiarity reigned in life and politics.

The comparisons of the economic systems of socialism and capitalism are unsound, and people understand this, which is why they protest big government. When we say “socialism and capitalism,” what we are really talking about is oppression and freedom. Are both morally deficient? I say no. The peasants of the Old World, the American founders, and the wandering ancient people of God all understood: the freedom that comes from Him is ours to use for good.

Catholic thinkers rightly understand that the conservatism written into the American framework is not a complete system. What they miss however is that the founders understood natural law and a truly just society. James Madison, when asked to support a law which provided assistance to a needy cause, famously said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” In his mind, this would have been stealing.

The founders respect for freedom of individuals and property is, as many evangelicals will say, “biblical.” Christ did nothing to alter this scriptural truth. He was not political. His parables are full of support for the rights of individuals to their money and property. What he gave to us in terms of charity and mercy did not remove any “jot” of the old law; it only added to it. We must do the same and respect the ancient laws while adhering to the requirements of Christian love as free men and women. Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, founder of the excellent CatholicCulture.org, was surprised by the “bitterness” he found from readers responding to the Bishops’ support of extended unemployment benefits last week. He presses the need for some “cautions” and “perspective” particularly when we begin to denounce the Bishops as socialists. He insists that we be ‘very careful in using this term” and not resort to “inaccurate name-calling.” Why are the bishops not socialists? According to Mirus it is because they never have advocated the state ownership of private means of production.

This incomplete defense is followed by a lengthy and abstract discussion on balancing solidarity and subsidiarity, building “intermediary” institutions, correcting the tax structure, pursuing the “twin goals of stimulating the production or wealth and preventing the marginalization of those who fall behind;” and patient acceptance with the way things are until something better can be created. “Conservative Catholics need to recognize that it is not wrong in Catholic social theory to engage government in fostering the economic common good. ” Here we must wonder where a conservative may disagree. Would they be against the ‘economic common good,” or just against re-distributionist confiscation and its uniformly negative results?

This familiar lullaby is epidemic in faithful Catholic intellectual circles. It grows mainly out of pride and a misunderstanding of the social justice writing of Leo XIII, Chesterton, and the Distributists. Such destructive thinking needs to be addressed as it runs contrary to natural law and the laws of God. Furthermore the Bishops, as they manifest culturally and politically via the USCCB, are not only socialists, but function regularly as statist agents. They do not shout for socialism; they just enact it and applaud its ongoing construction. They should be assessed not by what they advocate, but by what they achieve and destroy.

Mirus predictably goes on to say that there is no place for the wrong kind of rhetoric in this “legitimate debate” and that we should approach the discussion as “Catholics,” and not as conservatives or liberals. This tired approach, which draws a moral equivalency between capitalism and socialism, only exists to drag Catholics and others leftward toward oppression and despair. The article’s thesis on growing the correct types of “intermediary” institutions to replace federal programs first; smacks of Friedrick Hayek’s utopian “planners” People do not need new kinds of well-conceived institutions in America. They need freedom and the Church needs faith.

Dr. Mirus urges that Catholics respect the correct role of the state to care for the poor and the needy, and that conservative Catholics be charitable. He tells us that “It is simply not possible to be a Catholic while embracing a morally-deficient conservatism.”

This somewhat veiled condemnation of right and left alike, handed down by Catholic thinkers over the last two centuries, must be unpacked then scrapped. If capitalism “makes no provision for charity” it is because it simply trumpets freedom, leaving people to do as they may and as they must. Capitalism should not even be an “ism,” as socialism is. It is just what happens when you leave people to their own lives and property. It does not contradict Church teaching, it is simply a necessary component of it, as freedom is necessary to salvation.

Free “capitalist,” individuals are still compelled to charity in the name of Christ. That has nothing to do with government. It’s like blaming public schools for not giving out better free lunches and daycare. That is not their role and the failure is not theirs. Discussions of give and take in economic systems are not within the subject of charity; which is the purview of free human beings and the associations they freely create.

The oppression that the Distributists ascribe to capitalism is really just the collusion of business titans and big government. Ubiquitous corporate empires which destroy families and property then marginalize the poor, are not the natural course of free people in a free society. Furthermore, they were never an aspect of Christendom, where true charity was a holy institution and subsidiarity reigned in life and politics.

The comparisons of the economic systems of socialism and capitalism are unsound, and people understand this, which is why they protest big government. When we say “socialism and capitalism,” what we are really talking about is oppression and freedom. Are both morally deficient? I say no. The peasants of the Old World, the American founders, and the wandering ancient people of God all understood: the freedom that comes from Him is ours to use for good.

Catholic thinkers rightly understand that the conservatism written into the American framework is not a complete system. What they miss however is that the founders understood natural law and a truly just society. James Madison, when asked to support a law which provided assistance to a needy cause, famously said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” In his mind, this would have been stealing.

The founders respect for freedom of individuals and property is, as many evangelicals will say, “biblical.” Christ did nothing to alter this scriptural truth. He was not political. His parables are full of support for the rights of individuals to their money and property. What he gave to us in terms of charity and mercy did not remove any “jot” of the old law; it only added to it. We must do the same and respect the ancient laws while adhering to the requirements of Christian love as free men and women.


Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Private Pay Shrinks to Historic Lows as Gov't Payouts Rise

From USA Today
By Dennis Cauchon


Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

TV Documentary Shows Socialist Ideas Devastated Detroit


Demonstrates Why Failed Ideology Is Clear and Present Danger for America -- Airs May 23 Nationwide

As America sprints toward socialism, the city of Detroit provides a compelling look at what lies ahead and reveals why a course correction is needed. Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger, a TV documentary that airs nationwide Sunday, May 23, looks at the Motor City, where experts say excessive government regulation, social welfare policies, entitlement programs, and more have devastated what was once a vibrant American metropolis. A preview of the program is here.

Rev. Levon Yuille, a Detroit-area pastor for 42 years, says it is heartbreaking to see the city's transformation from one of America's most prosperous cities in the 1950s to one with a surplus of squalor, vacant lots, abandoned houses, dilapidated buildings, and blight.

"The city has lost half of its population and it has a skyrocketing crime rate," Yuille said. He blames the city's devastation on social welfare programs employed more than 30 years ago. That's when the Marxist philosophy of Coleman Young, Detroit's mayor from 1974 to 1993, began to take root, Yuille explained.

Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger also features footage from Venezuela and testimonies from Venezuelans who live under the socialist regime of Hugo Chavez. Interviews conducted in Latin America, and across America, and an analysis of socialism's tragic and blood-stained record in the 20th century show that a free market economic system produces the best results for citizens.

"The last century offers overwhelming evidence that socialism may promise paradise, but in the end, it produces poverty, tyranny and death," said Dr. Jerry Newcombe, co-producer of the TV documentary. "Socialism not only violates the principles of God's Word, but it has brought misery to millions. That's why America must not go down its path."

Monday, May 3, 2010

How Obama Himself Made More Than 'Enough Money'


From American Thinker
By Jack Cashill

In defending his administration's efforts at putative financial reform, President Obama suggested a ceiling, perhaps government-imposed, for Wall Street executives. Although he did not begrudge them income that is "fairly earned," he added ominously, "I do think that at a certain point, you've made enough money."

The president may be projecting guilt from his own excellent adventures in greed. A surprising 2006 article for the American Century Foundation by liberal publisher Peter Osnos sheds useful light on this subject. As Osnos relates, a 1990 New York Times profile on The Harvard Law Review's first black president caught the eye of a hustling young literary agent named Jane Dystel.

Dystel persuaded Obama to put a book proposal together, and she submitted it. Poseidon, a small imprint of Simon & Schuster, signed on and authorized a roughly $125,000 advance in November 1990 for Obama's proposed memoir.

With advance in hand, Obama repaired to Chicago, where the University of Chicago offered him an office and stipend to help him write. Obama dithered. At one point, in order to finish without interruption, he decamped to Bali for a month. Obama was supposed to have finished the book within a year. Bali or not, advance or no, he could not. He was surely in way over his head.

"Obama had missed deadlines and handed in bloated, yet incomplete drafts," David Remnick tells us in The Bridge. Simon & Schuster lost patience. In the summer of 1993, Simon & Schuster canceled the contract. According to Osnos, the publisher asked that Obama return at least some of the advance.

Not surprisingly, the Obama-friendly Remnick skips some of the details that Christopher Andersen includes in his book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, such as how Obama had spent $75,000 of the advance and could not pay it back. According to Andersen, the publisher let Obama keep the money only after he pled poverty due to "massive student loan debt" -- this despite a combined salary for the still childless Obamas well into six figures, not to mention the trip to Bali and a trip to Kenya for the couple as well.

As Osnos tells it, Dystel did not give up. She solicited Times Books, the division of Random House at which Osnos was publisher. He met with Obama, took his word that he could finish the book, and authorized a new advance of $40,000.

During this same period, Obama was working as a full-time associate at the law firm of Davis Miner, teaching classes at the University of Chicago Law School, and spinning through a social whirl that would have left Scarlett O'Hara dizzy. Writes Remnick, "He and Michelle accepted countless invitations to lunches, dinners, cocktail parties, barbecues, and receptions for right minded charities." Obama had also joined the East Bank Club, a combined gym and urban country club, and served on at least a few charitable boards.

In addition, Obama, as Remnick admits, was a slow writer. He would later explain his plodding, 19th-century technique to Daphne Durham of Amazon. "I would work off an outline -- certain themes or stories that I wanted to tell -- and get them down in longhand on a yellow pad. Then I'd edit while typing in what I'd written."

As Andersen tells it, Obama found himself deeply in debt and "hopelessly blocked." At "Michelle's urging," Obama "sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers." What attracted the Obamas were "Ayers's proven abilities as a writer." Noting that Obama had already taped interviews with many of his relatives, both African and American, Andersen elaborates, "These oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunkload of notes were given to Ayers." The result was Dreams From My Father.

Although Dreams did not do particularly well in 1995, the sales shot through the roof after Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. As Osnos relates, Obama unceremoniously dumped his devoted longtime agent after Dreams took off and then signed a seven-figure deal with Crown, using only a by-the-hour attorney.

Obama pulled off the deal after his election but before being sworn in as Senator in order to avoid the disclosure and reporting requirements applicable to members of Congress. Although an Obama-supporter, Osnos publicly scolds Obama for his "ruthlessness" and "his questionable judgment about using public service as a personal payday."

As to the question of income "fairly earned," Obama makes Fabrice 'Fabulous Fab' Tourre look like a lumberjack.
"... not ... because we begrudge success that is fairly earned."

Jack Cashill's latest book is Popes and Bankers.


Thursday, April 8, 2010

New States Join Courtroom Revolt Against ObamaCare


From LifeSiteNews
By Peter J. Smith

Five more U.S. states have now joined the attorneys general of a dozen other states in a lawsuit aimed at toppling the federal government’s new health care law.

The states assert that portions of the health care legislation signed into law by President Obama on March 23 amounts to constitutional overreach that infringes on the right of states and individuals to manage their own affairs.

"We welcome the partnership of Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona as we continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens and the sovereignty of our states," said Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum in a statement.

“On behalf of the residents in Florida and the states joining our efforts, we are committed to aggressively pursuing this lawsuit to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to prevent this unprecedented expansion of federal powers, impact upon state sovereignty, and encroachment on our freedom,” McCollum continued.

The attorneys general of Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington had already banded together with Florida to file a lawsuit against the federal government with the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

The lawsuit contends that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) infringes upon the constitutional rights of the residents of states by forcing all citizens and legal residents to carry qualified health insurance or pay a financial penalty.

The states contend that the insurance mandate exceeds the limited scope of the powers granted to the federal government under Article I of the US Constitution. Furthermore, they assert that the tax penalty for not carrying insurance violates the prohibition against the direct taxation of individuals outlined in Article I, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution.

The suit also contends that the PPACA infringes on the sovereignty of the states guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by forcing the states to abide by new operating rules and mandating that they spend billions of dollars to support the new health care system, when they already face severe budget crises.

Virginia has also filed its own separate lawsuit against the federal government, reiterating many of the concerns of its fellow states. Virginia has already passed a state law that expressly forbids the government from mandating that citizens carry health insurance or pay a penalty.

The addition of the five new states brings the total number of states involved in the Florida-led lawsuit against the federal government over ObamaCare to nineteen, including Virginia.

A hearing for scheduling the Florida-led suit is set to take place April 14, 2010 at 9 a.m. central time at the Federal Courthouse in Pensacola, Florida.


Saturday, April 3, 2010

Fla. Doc's Sign Warns Off Obama Supporters


We love to see a patriot shouting in the tyrant's face. This is the kind of civic action needed to reverse socialism and defeat the thugs. Let ACORN provide medical care to Obamunists.

A sign on the door of Dr. Jack Cassell's office in Mount Dora, Fla., tells patients "If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years." Photo: Deirdre Lewis / AP

A central Florida urologist has posted a sign on his office door warning supporters of President Barack Obama to find a different doctor.

Read the rest of this entry >>


Thursday, March 25, 2010

Castro Congratulates Comrade Obama

Viva Comrade Obama!

HAVANA (AP) -- It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Al Sharpton Calls 'Em As He Sees 'Em


From Rebellion Blog

Folks on the right, especially the Tea Party protesters, were soundly condemned for characterizing Obama's agenda as socialistic. All that's changed. Everyone on the left is dropping the pretense now that they've pushed through the government takeover of health care.



In case you missed it:

"The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama." The Reverend Al Sharpton.

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Reverend.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

We the People




Viewers are asked to do their part to save America -- by banding together with other patriotic citizens in signing the "Pledge for America's Revival." Produced by the staff of RenewAmerica.


Tuesday, March 16, 2010

ObamaCare: An Urgent Message to Our Catholic Readers


You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men.

(Matthew 5:13)
The Catholic Health Association has recently endorsed the Democrats' health care bill. This organization is comprised of 600 hospitals, hospices, long-term care facilities, and 3 of the largest HMO's in the nation. They are a network of institutions that may have some association with religious orders or the dioceses in which they operate, but they do not have the authority or competence to represent the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church. That they use the name "Catholic" to endorse policies antithetical to the Church is an attempt to sow confusion, undermines the authentic teaching of the Church, and is a grave sin.

Some have said that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) should condemn the Catholic Health Association for its advocacy of policies that would fundamentally change our country. However, the USCCB is itself a voluntary association of bishops with no more authority to teach, govern and sanctify than the Catholic Health Association, and we have seen how the USCCB has engaged in the same sorts of deception.


While it is the responsibility of individual bishops to address broad, moral concerns, to teach the faith, govern the local Church, and administer the sacraments, Catholic social teaching recognizes that it is primarily the responsibility of Catholic laymen to work out the details of a just, truly human, and Christian society.
Sadly, many Catholic leaders have become advocates for reforms that are in direct contradiction to long established and carefully stated moral teachings of the Church.

As we have noted before, there are wolves in prominent positions throughout the Church. We think the late Pope Paul VI had them in mind when he spoke of "il fumo di Satana nel tempio di Dio" ("the smoke of Satan in the Temple of God.") In regard to the Obama administration's effort to fundamentally transform America by seizing command of one sixth of America's economy, every Pope since the time of Marx and Engels has condemned socialism. Socialism was condemned in the 1878 papal encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris by Pope Leo XIII. It was even more thoroughly critiqued and condemned again by that Pope in the landmark encyclical Rerum Novarum, when he wrote:
"Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonwealth. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property."
It was denounced in the 1931 letter Quadragesimo Anno in which Pius XI famously wrote that "no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist." Other twentieth century Popes have been clear on this issue, including Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Centesimus Annus, which commemorated the 100th anniversary of Rerum Novarum.

My fellow Catholics, we are confronted with evil the likes of which we have never encountered before. This week will be a pivotal moment for our nation, in which we decide whether we will be a people of the government, or have a government of the people. Will we take the side of those carrying out Lenin's prescription for destroying a society by debauching its currency, or will we affirm Winston Churchill who wrote that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation?" Will we agree with Ronald Reagan who said that as "government expands, liberty contracts"? Or will we side with Obama, Pelosi and Reid in their seizure of private sector industries and our freedoms?

Churchill wrote that "When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals."
Now is the time to affirm what our Church taught so clearly before schismatics created confusion. To affirm truths about the dignity and freedom of man, we must stand like those faithful clergy and laymen who died for their faith in the last century, rather than relent to totalitarian statism and socialism.

It is a time to remember the thousands of Catholic servicemen and women who lived and died for faith, freedom, individual rights and opportunity, and where the possibility of being forced to pay for the state-sanctioned murder of infants was unthinkable. It is time to affirm and be faithful to the commitment made and the graces received in the Sacrament of Confirmation. We are obliged and duty bound to protect our nation from false notions about man and society that have so recently gained a foothold in our country after they were thoroughly discredited in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

The Democrats' plan for health care in America, whether it contains specific language sanctioning taxpayer funding for abortion or not, is anti-life and evil. It fundamentally changes the nature of our society, our relationship to government, undermines our economic security, makes government the final arbiter as to what health care you should receive, rations health care, and ultimately decides who lives and who dies. And does anyone think that a President who has voted to let infants surviving abortion die of neglect, will not find ways to advance his demonic culture of death? Our Secretary of State has lectured Brazil in just the past week on why they should sponsor this kind of infanticide.


The American poet James Russell Lowell wrote:
"Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;"
Mid-Lent is a good time for every Catholic to decide on which side one will fight. Will we support policies from the pit of Hell, or will we resist, call our Congressmen, and take whatever actions are appropriate to our state in life to ensure that such legislation is not passed? And if it is passed, will we ensure that the next Congress rolls it back and fundamentally changes the direction in which our country is headed? One cannot be both Catholic and socialist.

God has a plan for your life. It is no accident that he created you for this time. Raise your voices and, in the words of the prophet Isaiah:
"Arise, shine, your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rests upon you ...nations will come to your light and kings to the brightness of your dawn."