Viva Comrade Obama!HAVANA (AP) -- It perhaps was not the endorsement President
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 >>The follow-up health care bill being considered by the Senate will have to return to the House for final congressional approval, after the Senate parliamentarian determined that two Republican challenges will succeed in stripping out language in the package.
e abortion expansion embedded in the Senate health care bill, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on Tuesday turned around and blasted his pro-life critics, dismissed the Catholic hierarchy as having no control over Catholic legislators, and expressed support for Planned Parenthood and its provision of “health care” in his district. Stupak and a crucial handful of other House Democrats holding out for an abortion funding ban took the whole country by surprise Sunday by switching sides mere hours before the final health care vote. The switch was made in exchange for an executive order from President Obama purporting to uphold the Hyde amendment abortion funding ban for the legislation – an executive order that pro-lifers have said is essentially meaningless.
In a recent interview with the Washington Times about his health care vote, Stupak defended Planned Parenthood, saying that the clinics in his district do not perform abortions. Interviewer Kerry Picket pressed Stupak on his reasons for not voting for the Pence amendment in 2009, which would have stripped Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer funding under Health and Human Services "family planning" (or Title X) funds.
"I don’t think I ever voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not do abortions…in my district," said Stupak. "Planned Parenthood has a number of clinics in my district that provide health care for my people. Therefore, these clinics do quite well in my district, and I’m all for health care and extending it to everybody - access to health care, so that’s just another way.”
The lawmaker indicated that he trusted the organization's "segregation of funds," between monies diverted to abortion and those going to other health services.
"Also on Planned Parenthood, when they do it, there is a segregation of funds that go with it. It’s usually about four hundred million they tried to de-fund on Planned Parenthood. Maybe this time, I’ll look at it again if Pence brings it up. Maybe I’ll vote differently this time, but you’re right I did vote against it.”
Picket pointed out that, while the Planned Parenthood clinics in Michigan did not list abortion services, they did list abortion referral as one of the services offered.
This past Sunday night Stupak shocked his pro-life supporters when he shot down a last-ditch attempt to include his own abortion-ban language in the bill, saying the motion to send the bill back to include the ban only "purports to be a right-to-life motion" that "is really to politicize life." (See video here.)
"This is nothing more than an opportunity to continue to deny 32 million Americans health insurance," he said, amid loud cheers and angry shouts. "This motion does not promote life.
"It is the Democrats who have stood up for the principle of no public funding for abortions. ... For the Republicans who now claim that we send the bill back to committee under this guise of protecting life, is disingenuous."
Stupak later told the Times that he voted against his own language "because I feel that we have adequately — more than adequately protected life, the sanctity of life especially with the executive order, the colloquy on the floor," and suggested pro-lifers dissatisfied with the executive order were being hypocritical.
"And as I said on the floor, the right to life groups applauded George Bush in 2007 when he did his executive order, and now we did our executive order, suddenly its not good enough?" he said. "I believe some groups politicize life. As I said in my motion, when I spoke against the motion [to recommit], ‘let’s not politicize life.' Let’s prioritize life, and that’s what we did in this legislation and the executive order."
Yet top pro-life legal analysts, including the National Right to Life Committee, Americans United for Life, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops - a strong supporter of health care reform - all agreed that the executive order does not have the power to correct the bill's serious flaws on life issues.
In a phone interview with the Daily Caller, Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee responded to Stupak's charges. “We haven’t said anything to suggest we think executive orders are never of value,” he said.
However, Johnson pointed out that Bush's executive order supported existing law, whereas Obama's executive order "basically just recites what's in the Senate bill.
"We do not understand how an Executive Order, no matter how well intentioned, can substitute for statutory provisions," noted the USCCB in a statement Tuesday. Even Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards asserted that the bill would "significantly increase access to reproductive health care," and dismissed the order as a "symbolic" gesture.
Stupak also noted in the interview, in answering a question on papal sovereignty, that, "the Pope and the Catholic faith does not control Catholic legislators." "We must vote reflective of our districts and our beliefs. When I vote pro-life, it happens to be my own personal belief, also my district’s beliefs and the nation's," he said.
The national pro-life movement has continued to recoil from the lawmaker: days after the Susan B. Anthony List rescinded its planned "Defender of Life" award for Stupak, Michigan Right to Life has rescinded its endorsement of the lawmaker.
"Rep. Stupak indicated he would oppose any efforts to include federally funded abortion in national health care plans; support efforts to specifically exclude federally funded abortion in national health care plans; and be willing to vote against federal funding of abortion except where necessary to save the life of the mother," said the group in a statement.
"On March 21, Rep. Stupak failed to meet those requirements by voting for President Barack Obama's health care bill, H.R. 3590."
If some reports are to be believed, the Democrats will pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today. Thus, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.Of course, the bill is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”
The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.
1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))
8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).
9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).
11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))
12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).
14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)
18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).
Virginia and eleven other states are readying the first battle with the federal government over the newly passed health care legislation, with their state attorneys general prepared to argue that the impending law and its mandates to buy health insurance violates the U.S. Constitution, and trample on individual and states’ rights. The lawsuits are poised to begin as soon as President Barack Obama has signed the now Congressionally-approved health care bill into law.Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli first announced his plans to file suit in Richmond, saying the Constitution gives Congress no authority under the interstate commerce clause to force Americans to buy a product, let alone health insurance.
The new health care law requires that every American carry health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine to the Internal Revenue Service.
“At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service,” Cuccinelli declared in a statement.
“We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce,” the attorney general added.
Cuccinelli warned that if the premise behind the law is accepted, then Congress has unlimited authority to regulate the lives of every single American.
“If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives.”
A Cucinelli spokesman told the Washington Post that the attorney general plans to file the lawsuit "as soon as the ink is dry" on the bill signed into law by President Obama.
Eleven other U.S. states so far have banded together in another, separate lawsuit to fight the federal government, citing constitutional overreach in its health care bill. The attorneys general of Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington have banded together to launch the same lawsuit against the federal government.
South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster denounced the health care legislation as “an assault against the Constitution of the United States.”
“It contains various provisions and federal mandates that are clearly unconstitutional and must not be allowed to stand,” McMaster said in a statement. “The key question involved is whether personal freedom, state sovereignty and constitutional law will survive in America for future generations.”
“A legal challenge by the States appears to be the only hope of protecting the American people from this unprecedented attack on our system of government,” he continued, adding that he felt compelled by the oath he took “to uphold and defend both the United States and South Carolina constitutions.”
Idaho, which passed a bill mandating its attorney general sue the federal government if national health care reform were enacted, will likely join the fray once President Obama has signed the bill.
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has also stated that he is in the process of considering legal challenges to the health care legislation.
Tennessee Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey has also asked Attorney General Bob Cooper to investigate waging a lawsuit against the federal government over the health care legislation.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, over 36 states are considering some form of legislative action that would protect their citizens from different aspects of President Barack Obama’s health care reform legislation.
"This Wednesday night is our third annual Campaign for Life Gala, where we were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform-we will no longer be doing so. By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country.
"Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves 'pro-life.' The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election. Now through Election Day 2010, these representatives will learn that votes have consequences. The SBA List Candidate Fund will work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted. We will actively seek out true pro-life candidates to oppose Members who vote 'yes' on this bill, whether it be in general or primary elections. For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November.
"The executive order on abortion funding does absolutely nothing to fix the problems presented by the health care reform bill that the House will vote on this evening. The very idea should offend all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President's whim, and the courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders. Most importantly, pro-abortion Representatives have admitted the executive order is meaningless."
Last night, Rep. DeGette told The Huffington Post, "If there was an executive order saying they weren't going to use federal funds in the bill to pay for abortions that would be fine with me."
Today, Rep. Wasserman Schultz admitted to Fox News' Megyn Kelly that "an executive order cannot change the law."
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out today that "only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation."
From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen GilbertOn the solemn Catholic feast of one of the most prestigious patron saints of unborn children, St. Joseph, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has invoked the husband of Mary and the stepfather of Jesus to help pass the abortion-laden health care bill."Today is the feast of St. Joseph the Worker," Pelosi told reporters Friday on Capitol Hill. "It's a day where we remember and pray to St. Joseph to benefit the workers of America, and that's exactly what our health care bill will do."
However, Catholic commentators quickly pointed out that Pelosi's Catholic pitch was less than pitch-perfect: March 19 is actually the Catholic feast of St. Joseph, husband of Mary, and not the feast of St. Joseph the Worker, which takes place on May 1.
AmericanPapist blogger Thomas Peters wrote that, "When I first heard about this I thought it was a joke. But Nancy Pelosi's callous way of twisting her faith to suit her politics is beyond parody."
As more pseudo-Catholic organizations voice support for the health care bill, the Obama administration has jumped at the chance to win a "Catholic" endorsement for the bill in the hope of persuading conservative Democrats in the House to vote the measure through. Taking up that line, Pelosi noted that she was pleased "that we've got a letter representing 60 leaders of religious sisters" pushing the bill.
"Every order that you can think of was there saying that they wanted us to pass this life-affirming legislation," she claimed.
Network, a pro-abortion social justice lobby of religious sisters, earlier this week joined the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in urging support for the bill as "the REAL pro-life stance." Since then, however, a coalition of traditional nuns have rushed to back the USCCB's condemnation of the anti-life bill, which all major pro-life organizations have deemed completely unacceptable on the life issues.
In addition, a quickly-growing number of bishops have individually issued statements warning their flock not to be "fooled" by the left-wing religious sisters' endorsement.
Who:
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council
Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President for FRC
Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of the USCCB Secretariat of Pro Life Activities
Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee
What:
Media Conference Call on Health Care Reform
When:
3 PM EST
Friday, March 19, 2010
How:
Dial 866-939-3921
From LifeSiteNews
"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places."
Ephesians 6:12
"How's it been? Like a living hell," Stupak told the newspaper, describing how his district offices have been "jammed" with strong feedback, much of it from non-constituents, over his opposition to the massively abortion-expanding bill.
Despite the enormous pressure, the former state trooper indicated he wasn't about to budge. "I'm pretty stubborn," said Stupak.
The Hill reports that the group of Democrat lawmakers who are prepared to vote with Stupak (Stupak confirmed there are still at least twelve of them) met Tuesday morning to strategize and commiserate over the heavy pressure.
Stupak lamented that his pleas to party leaders to allow his language, which provided a ban on abortion funding in the House health care bill, into the Senate version, have been ignored.
"In the past, we've always been able to work it out," said Stupak. "This is the first time we've not been able to work it out."
While many have singled out Stupak and his group to blame for holding up the bill, the lawmaker pointed out: "I can't block it. Bart Stupak and his 'dirty dozen,' however you want to call it, we can't block it. There's 39 other [Democrats] who didn't vote for it."
Stupak noted that he feels conflicted because he does support health care reform - but compromising on abortion is not an option. "It's a belief for me, so it's easier to do," he said. "And it's a belief for my district, so I guess it's easier to do."
Democrats are expected on Thursday to unveil the reconciliation "fix" package, created to appease Blue Dog House Democrats' concerns over the bill, which the chamber may vote on instead of the health bill itself. According to the scheme devised by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Senate health bill could simply be "deemed" to pass once the House passes the fix package.
While constitutional concerns over the procedure have already been raised - raising the spectre of the bill's lengthy entanglement in the Supreme Court - even should it pass the House, Senate Republicans are warning that they will stop at nothing to keep the "fix" package from passing in the Senate.
With the public rejecting their government takeover of health care, and Code Red turning up the heat, Democrat leaders are twisting arms and playing hard ball to ram this thing through.
There have been reports of conservative Democrats being on the receiving end of “intense pressure tactics” and “thinly veiled threats.” AP says they’ve even gotten “blunt messages” from union bosses. Well let’s make sure they hear from everyday Americans too. Here are today’s targets:
Our Code Red effort is picking up a lot of national attention. Yesterday, both NBC’s Today Show and CBS Evening News highlighted it during their broadcasts. Politico said our website, GOPCodeRed.com, has “become a hub for organizing” against the health care takeover.
The more attention we get, and the more lawmakers hear from us, the harder Speaker Pelosi has to work to convince Democrats to vote with her. That’s why your calls and emails are so important.
So please keep it up: believe me, with your help we’re making a big impact.
Johnny
PS, Every morning, from now until the vote occurs, I’ll be highlighting a new set of targeted Democrats for Code Red volunteers to contact. So please forward this email encouraging your friends and family to visit GOPCodeRed.com and sign up if you think they’d be interested in these updates. Thank you again for all of your hard work!
Johnny DeStefano|GOPCodeRed.com
Political Director | Republican Leader John A. Boehner
Deputy Executive Director |National Republican Congressional Committee
ote against health care legislation both on the House floor and in the rules committee, on which he sits.Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY), a sophomore Dem who had a tougher-than-expected re-election bid in '08, has told the Dem caucus he will vote against the bill.
He becomes the 3rd member, along with Reps. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), to have switched from supporting the first bill, in Nov., to opposing the Senate version.
Arcuri's vote will not hurt the bill's chances in committee, where Dems hold a 9-4 advantage over GOPers. The panel's other 8 Dems all voted for the first version of health care, and only Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) voted in favor of the Stupak amendment.
But Arcuri's decision could make Speaker Nancy Pelosi's goal of winning the 216 votes necessary for passage all the more difficult. Sources say Dems remain short of the votes necessary for passage, but that they have not reached their goal yet.
Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.
From The Heritage Foundation
New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, who chairs the House Rules Committee, may use a "self-executing rule" to say the Senate bill is approved by the House, even without a formal up or down vote on the measure. The House would then only vote on the "reconciliation" corrections to the bill.
"If the House takes up a bill - the Senate-passed Obamacare - refuses to have a direct vote on it, yet sets up a mechanism to send it to the president and admits as much as Democratic leadership is admitting that the House members do not want to vote directly on the Senate-passed bill, that is a violation of the Constitution, the letter and the spirit," Darling contends. "It's not something that individuals should tolerate. The courts should get involved in this, hopefully."
A vote on the Senate healthcare bill could take place as early as Friday night in the House, and the congressional analyst believes if the bill does not pass this week, the Democrats' healthcare reform plan may be dead for good.
The House's healthcare vote could be delayed until as late as Easter, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Tuesday.
Clyburn, in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers, said it is possible that the House vote on healthcare reform could take place long past the vote Democratic leaders had hoped for this week.
"The chances are good, but I wouldn't bet on it," the third-ranking House Democrat said of whether a healthcare vote could be held by the April 4th holiday.
Democrats are working to cobble together the necessary votes to either pass the Senate's healthcare bill with a separate set of fixes to it, or a congressional rule that would deem the Senate bill as having passed.
Clyburn, whose leadership job is to serve as chief vote-counter for the Democrats, said that the vote on healthcare could be closer than previous nail-biters the House has held on the stimulus act and on its own healthcare bill.
"I need 216 votes to pass this bill," Clyburn told McClatchy. "I think I'm going to get 216 votes. It could be closer than last time. All I want is 216 votes."
"The stimulus vote was nothing compared to this," the majority whip added.
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.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.
(Matthew 5:13)
"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.
"Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;"
"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."
