Saint Alberic Crescitelli | Favorite President George W. Bush Pictures | Website Home Page/Index | Fr. Seamus Hogan Homilies Archive "All Things Political" Archives, 1999-2004 | "All Things Political" Archives, 2004-2005 | "All Things Political" Archives, 2005-Present "Religion/Culture/Morals" Archives, 1999-2004 | "Religion/Culture/Morals" Archives, 2004-Present | Computer-Related Stuff NEWEST Things Posted Printer-Friendly Page | NEWEST Things Posted | Favorite Websites Religious Denominations In The United States Happy Independence Day! (July 4th) Here are some links to (2008) election polls on the Internet: RealClear Politics - Polls | RealClear Politics 2008 Primary Delegate Count (Rep/Dem) | Survey USA - Current Election Polls Rasmussen Reports - Election 2008 Presidential Tracking Poll | Polling Report - White House 2008: General Election Polls The Green Papers - United States General Election 2008 | D.C.'s Political Report - 2008 Presidential Race | ElectionProjection.com The Green Papers: State-By-State Summary - 2008 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, And Conventions A QUICK SHORTCUT !!!! CLICK HERE to go straight to "RECENTLY POSTED ARTICLES" + Requiescat In Pace (RIP) + GO CARDS!!! There's also always 2009.... (Click on the above picture to go to the Social Security Calculator website.) Were You Counting on Social Security? Enter your age and gender to calculate what an American worker of your same age and gender can expect to receive from Social Security. And See How You're Missing Out. The Calculator also estimates how much money you could save with a personal retirement account. A Prayer For Our Country's Leaders Heavenly Father, I come to You in the mighty Name of Jesus to ask blessings and mercy on my country and its leaders. Please guide our President and his cabinet, our Congress and courts, and leaders throughout our land in every decision they make. Show them the way of truth and righteousness. In times of stress, Lord, make them steady; in times of hardship, make them strong; in times of success, make them humble. Turn their hearts to You that they will want Your wisdom and be obedient to Your instructions. Let them recognize evil and turn away from it, and let them know good and grasp hold of it. Make them honest, effective and innovative as they run our country, but most of all, cause them to be men and women of high integrity in Your eyes, that under their leadership this nation and its people may prosper. For Your many blessings I praise and thank You - and ask you to grant my prayer: That this nation may truly say "In God We Trust" all the days of our lives. Amen. (Click on the PROUDLY waving American flag to go to the American Heroes website!) Listen to 97.1 FM Talk (in the St. Louis, Missouri metropolitan area) -- to hear the radio shows of all the radio personalities whose pictures you see -- above. (Click on each photo for a link to each!) Be sure to click on the 97.1 FM On The Air Program Schedule for the NEW & UPDATED listings. And don't forget....one can hear 97.1 FM via LIVE "streaming audio" - over the Internet! Here are several (clickable) links to 9-11 tributes/related material DEBATES: Life Since Sept. 11 | "Can't Cry Hard Enough" | 9-11 Television Archives | America Triumphant | World Trade Center Tribute God Bless America | R.E.M. - "Everybody Hurts" | Tribute To America | WTC Attack Picture Gallery | 9-11 screen savers American Bald Eagle Crying screen saver | "Only Time" | American (War) Bald Eagle screensaver (small version) American (War) Bald Eagle screensaver (large version) | Attack On America | SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 ATTACK ON AMERICA Prayer For The Nation | Free Republic's 9-11 100 Hours of Remembrance | 2001 911 Memorial Accounts From The World Trade Center's South Tower | Heroes Live Forever | Accounts From The World Trade Center's North Tower September 11 News.com The articles that were previously posted at this particular web page continue to be archived: "All Things Political" Archives, 1999-2004 | "All Things Political" Archives, 2004-2005 | "All Things Political" Archives, 2005-Present "Religion/Culture/Morals" Archives, 1999-2004 | "Religion/Culture/Morals" Archives, 2004-Present (Click on the banner to go to the Defend America website.) RECENTLY POSTED ARTICLES If you know of anyone else who might be interested in receiving "All Things Political" and "Religion/Culture/Morals" updates (or if you just want to contact me), click HERE (will open new message in Outlook program) or email me at tmorelli@hotmail.com Grover Weather Forecast, MO (63040) (By the way, here's the most up-to-date weather in Grover, Missouri....) 6-24-09 Wednesday 8:30 pm (ET) Friends, Romans, Countrymen, Sixteen "All Things Political" and twenty-five "Religion/Culture/Morals" articles have been posted.... "Religion/Culture/Morals" articles 1) Best Ever Homily On The Solemnity Of The Most Holy Body And Blood Of Christ (Corpus Christi) - Deacon Greg Kandra 2) The Priesthood, Old And New - Sonja Corbitt 3) The New Missal - Historic Moment In Liturgical Renewal - Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, S.T.D., S.S.L., D.D 4) The Sixth Wind? Headlines Trumpet Christian Decline, But A Closer Look Suggests Another Rise In Serious Faith - Marvin Olasky 5) The Murder Of Civil Life - Bruce Walker 6) Confessions Of A Computer Hater - Peter Kreeft 7) 10 Abortion-Promoting Catholic Colleges - Tim Drake 8) Why Women Are Unhappy - Phyllis Schlafly 9) On Cyril And Methodius: "Each People Should … Express The Salvific Truth With Their Own Language" - Pope Benedict XVI 10) Letter Of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI Proclaiming A Year For Priests On The 150th Anniversary Of The "Dies Natalis" Of The Cure Of Ars (The Priesthood Is The Love Of The Heart Of Jesus) - Pope Benedict XVI 11) Government-Run Churches, Can It Happen Here? - Chuck Colson 12) Why Stop At The Vestibule Of The Castle Of Pleasure? - Catholic Pundit 13) Cardinal Says Catholics Humbled By Anglicans' Decision To Join Church - Teresita Johnson 14) Confessions Of A Lapsed Atheist - Jenn Q. Public 15) Get Back In The Closet - Mike Adams 16) Guideline For The Publication Of Liturgical Books [New Missal] - USCCB.org "All Things Political" articles 1) Dear David Letterman - Michelle Malkin 2) Hovering On High: Obama Surveys The World - Charles Krauthammer 3) Listening, GOP? 40% Of Americans Call Themselves Conservatives - Rush Limbaugh 4) Facts On The Health Care Debate -- And The Animal Care Comparison - Rush Limbaugh 5) Reflections On The Iranian Enigma. The World Turned Upside Down - Victor Davis Hanson 6) Sarah Palin, The 21st Century 'It' Girl - Jay Valentine 7) Opposing Obama In 2010 - Lorie Byrd 8) 1984 All Over Again - Rick Moran 9) Why Obama Wants To Hide Birth Certificate - Joseph Farah 10) There Is No Health Care "Crisis" - Rush Limbaugh 11) Barack Obama: Lord Of The Flies - Rush Limbaugh 12) Bam Whines About Fox News; Claims To Lose Sleep Over Deficits - Rush Limbaugh 13) Prepare For Canadian Health Care - Rush Limbaugh 14) 'Don't Tell Me It Can't Be Done' - Newt Gingrich 15) What's The Big Hurry? - David Harsanyi 16) Barack Obama: Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places - Ben Shapiro 17) Change People Are Starting To No Longer Believe In - Matt Towery 18) Vatican Newspaper Editor Digs Deeper Hole - Deal Hudson 19) '45 Million Americans' -- Who Are Those Guys? - Larry Elder 20) Reading Miranda Rights To Terrorists Is 'Crazy' And 'Stupid,' Say GOP Congressmen - Bridget Miller & Edwin Mora 21) After Obama Fails - George Joyce 22) Palin Proves Conservatives Can Fight Pop Culture And Win - Gary Bauer 23) Dueling Health Care Plans Unveiled - Connie Hair 24) Rasmussen: 39% Now Blame Bad Economy On Obama’s Policies - Rasmussen Reports 25) The Man Who Would Be God - Burt Prelutsky Take care, Tom "Religion/Culture/Morals" articles 1) Best Ever Homily On The Solemnity Of The Most Holy Body And Blood Of Christ (Corpus Christi) Deacon's Bench http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2009/06/homily-for-june-14th-2009-corpus.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2271245/posts June 13, 2009 Deacon Greg Kandra Back in the 1970s, when there was a lot of liturgical innovation going on, Dorothy Day invited a young priest to celebrate mass at the Catholic Worker. He decided to do something that he thought was relevant and hip. He asked Dorothy if she had a coffee cup he could borrow. She found one in the kitchen and brought it to him. And, he took that cup and used it as the chalice to celebrate mass. When it was over, Dorothy picked up the cup, found a small gardening tool, and went to the backyard. She knelt down, dug a hole, kissed the coffee cup, and buried it in the earth. With that simple gesture, Dorothy Day showed that she understood something that so many of us today don't: she knew that Christ was truly present in something as ordinary as a ceramic cup. And that it could never be just a coffee cup again. She understood the power and reality of His presence in the blessed sacrament. Which is really the sum and substance of what we celebrate on this feast, Corpus Christi. The reason for what we will do today - celebrating with the monstrance, the music, the procession - isn't to glorify an inanimate object, a bit of bread contained in glass. It is to remind the world that in that bread we have been given Christ. Not an idea. Not a symbol. Not an abstract bit of arcane theology. No. It is wider and deeper and more mysterious than that. Look at that host -- and you look at Christ. Centuries ago, the early saint of the church, Justin Martyr, described how the first Christians received communion. They did it the way we do it today, offering their outstretched hands, one over another. And he put it so beautifully: "They make of their hands a throne," he wrote. They make themselves ready to receive a king. Do we understand that today? I'm not so sure. Too often, I think, we see the minister of holy communion as just a liturgical Pez dispenser - passing out a sliver of bread, again and again and again, and we don't truly, truly, realize what is happening. I'll tell you what is happening. We are receiving an incalculable gift. We are taking into our hands, and placing on our tongues, something astounding. We are being given God. Look at the host, and you look at Christ. Too often, we take it for granted. It's just one more part of the mass. Something else to do. No. It isn't. When I was in formation, I remember a talk given on the Eucharist by then-Father Caggiano. He spoke of St. Francis of Assisi, one of the holiest saints of the church. During his entire life, Francis received the eucharist only three times. It was that sacred to him - and he felt himself that undeserving. He understood, deeply, the words we pray before we receive communion. "Lord I am not worthy..." None of us is. And yet, he gives us himself anyway. The God who became man for us...again and again becomes bread for us. Look at the host, and you look at Christ. Everything we are, everything we believe, everything we celebrate around this altar comes down to that incredible truth. What began two thousand years ago in an upper room continues here, and now, and at altars around the world. The very source of our salvation is transformed into something you can hold in the palm of your hand. A lot of you know Sister Camille D'Arienzo, who has been here many times to speak. She tells the story of a priest who was pouring some unconsecrated communion wafers from a bag, to get ready for mass. Some fell on the floor. He bent down and picked up the stray hosts, just ordinary wafers, unconsecrated, to throw them out. And he held one between his thumb and forefinger and showed it to her. "Just think," he said, "what this could have become." Just think what we become when we receive the body of Christ. We become nothing less than living tabernacles. God dwells within us. As the hymn tells us, we become what we receive. And what we receive becomes us. That is the great mystery, and great grace, the great gift of this most blessed sacrament. My question on this feast: what will we do with that knowledge? Once we have been transformed, by bread that has been transformed, how can we leave this holy place without seeking to transform the world? How can we just go out and head to brunch, or dinner, or out to do yardwork or the weekly grocery shopping? We carry something greater than ourselves. And that makes us instruments of God's great work in the world - literally. In some small way, we have been changed. You'll notice that when the priest or deacon celebrates Benediction, he uses what is called a "humeral veil." He wraps this long cloth around his hands and then takes hold of the monstrance to offer a blessing. There is a reason for that. It is to signify that the blessing comes not from the hands of the priest or deacon. It comes from Christ himself. The one holding the monstrance is merely the instrument. When we receive communion, that is true for each of us. We become instruments of Christ, bearers of Christ. Dorothy Day knew that an ordinary cup that had contained the blood of Christ could never be just a cup again. Well, what's true for a ceramic cup is true for each of us. Once we have received him, we can never be the same again. What will we do with that knowledge? How will we use what has changed us.to change the world? 2) The Priesthood, Old And New Catholic Exchange http://catholicexchange.com/2009/06/15/119486 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2272361/posts June 15, 2009 Sonja Corbitt As a Baptist Sunday School and Bible study teacher, one of the questions that used to nag at me incessantly was this: Why, after such painstaking deliberation in dictating an institutional religion that pleased Him in the Old Testament and that was designed to lead the people to recognize the Messiah when He came, would God then introduce a system in the New Testament Church that was so completely unlike the one He established in the Old? There are innumerable examples of how ridiculous this complete “change” would be, but take the priesthood, for instance. Priests were the officiators of worship whose main duties, those that set them apart from the “priesthood of the people” (Exodus 19:6), were to maintain the tabernacle sanctuary, offer sacrifices, and facilitate the peoples’ confession of sins through them. God Himself established this formal priesthood, stipulating everything about it in the Law of the Torah. The priests must be descendants of Aaron, the first priest selected by God Himself; their bodies must have no defect in them, because their persons and bodies were an offering to God (like the animals they would sacrifice on the altar); they must be dedicated in a special seven-day ceremony that involved bathing, oils, and sacrifices. They were clad in special garments. They wore a “coat” woven from a single piece of linen without seam that symbolized spiritual integrity, wholeness and righteousness. The headpiece, called a miter, was made by God’s direction to look like a flower in bloom to illustrate the wearers’ spiritual health and bloom. The girdle, specified by God, was a belt worn around the waist to show that theirs was an office of service to the people. While in active service to God in the tabernacle, and later at the temple, the priests were to have no marital relations with their spouses. This celibacy illustrated the inherent purity which the priest must embody. Along with offering sacrifices, they were to be the teachers of the people. This was not to prevent the people from learning, praying, or studying the Law on their own; it was simply to protect the people from error. They were also the office of authoritative judgment for the people, a way of justice for them. This priesthood was so sacred that even the priests’ possible, probable and, later, actual, infidelity to God would not negate it. The people were instructed to officially hear and obey them due to the sanctity of their office, as it was a function of God’s grace rather than the priests’ merit. The priesthood was to be a perpetual institution (Exodus 40:15), as were the sacrifices they would offer Him. ”If this is true, where is the priesthood in the New Testament, after Christ?” I asked myself as a Baptist. It cannot simply be that members of the body of Christ were now “The Priesthood” as I had been taught through 1Peter 2:9 and the Book of Hebrews; not if the Old Testament is to be our example as the Scriptures so clearly say (Matthew 13:52). In the Old Testament, the people were also said to be a priesthood, though still not of the official, institutional office (Exodus 19:6), and St. Peter uses the same wording when he speaks of the “priesthood of the believer.” If the Old Testament is our example, there must also be a formal New Testament office of the priesthood in addition to the priesthood of the believer. The “fulfillment” of the Old Testament in Christ cannot, and would not, negate the perpetual and institutional nature of the office of the priesthood. He Himself said He came to fulfill it, that is to give it its proper orientation and meaning, not abolish it (Matthew 5:17-18). This was one of the questions that bothered me the more I learned about the Old Testament example, especially after experiencing the epidemic rebellion, disunity, and church-splitting of the sole “priesthood of the believer” propounded in Protestant churches. Although the Scriptures are full of how consecrated and special they are to God, there is little respect for pastors’ authority or office in denominational churches anymore. A sign of the times, of course, but also a sign of a fundamental structural error (and appropriately of the exact nature of the original error) that is now making itself evident; for the perpetual, institutional priesthood was carried forth in obedience in and through the Catholic Church. Everything about the Old Testament example, including the priesthood of the believer, is both fulfilled and perpetuated in Her, through Christ’s eternal sacrifice, just as the Scriptures teach. The sacrifices Catholic priests make are the single sacrifice pleasing to God: His only Son. This is the Sacrifice pictured and eternally being offered in the heavenly temple revealed to St. John in the Book of Revelation, the Sacrifice initiated and perpetuated by Christ Himself in the words “do this in remembrance of me,” this being the very thing Jesus was about to do — sacrifice Himself. Who obeys this command to the letter, offering and consuming the Blood of the new covenant and the Body which is broken for us, but the priesthood of the Catholic Church? Who officiates at this true and perpetual Sacrifice but the priesthood of the Catholic Church? Who maintains the sanctuary, offers the Sacrifice, and facilitates the peoples’ confession of sin? Who carries forth the descendants and celibacy of Christ’s priesthood with the consecration and the garments? Who administers the official and error-free, authoritative Teaching of Christ? Who but the priesthood of the Catholic Church? The formal priesthood was to be an eternal sign of God’s wish and order that there be an institutional system in service to His precious people. As Catholics, we can rejoice and rest in the provision, Scriptural nature, and orthodoxy of our beloved formal priesthood. Let us confidently pray for vocations, while striving to meet our own obligation to holiness as part of the priesthood of the believer. 3) The New Missal - Historic Moment In Liturgical Renewal Catholic Culture http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9010 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2272156/posts 2009 Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, S.T.D., S.S.L., D.D In May 2002, the publication of the Missale Romanum marked an historic moment in the life of the Church in our day. It gave an impetus to the great liturgical renewal set in motion when Vatican II issued Sacrosanctum Concilium as its first document. With Vatican II, began … the great work of renewal of the liturgical books of the Roman Rite. [This] … work … included their translation into vernacular languages, with the purpose of bringing about in the most diligent way that renewal of the sacred Liturgy…. (Liturgiam authenticam 1 and 2). In the enthusiasm of the aggiornamento [updating], translators set to work to produce translations that expressed the Latin Missal in modes of expression appropriate to the vernacular languages. From 1969 until 2001, the document Comme le Prévoit granted translators wide latitude in translations for the liturgy. Rather quickly in the English-speaking world, translators adopted “dynamic equivalency” as their approach to the texts. Simply stated, dynamic equivalency translates the concepts and ideas of a text, but not necessarily the literal words or expressions. In light of the experience in the last 36 years, the Church has revisited the question of how to best translate the texts of Sacred Scripture and the liturgy. Many people had noticed the deficiency of dynamic equivalency. In 2001, the Holy See issued the instruction Liturgiam authenticam to guide translations both of the Scriptures and of liturgical texts. The new instruction did not deny the necessity of making the text accessible to the listener. But, it did refocus the attention of translators on the principle of unearthing the theological richness of the original texts. This needed balance keeps us from suffering an impoverishment of language in terms of our biblical and liturgical tradition. Liturgiam authenticam espouses the theory of “formal equivalency”. Not just concepts, but words and expression are to be translated faithfully. This approach respects the wealth contained in the original text. In fact, the new instruction has as its stated purpose something wider than translation. It “envisions and seeks to prepare for a new era of liturgical renewal, which is consonant with the qualities and the traditions of the particular Churches, but which safeguards also the faith and the unity of the whole Church of God” (Liturgiam authenticam 7). From the very beginning, the translation of the third typical edition of the Roman Missal has followed the principles given in Liturgiam authenticam. To understand and appreciate the final text, it is extremely enlightening to understand the careful process that has been used in the work of translation. I would like to briefly share this process with you. The Process of Translation After the publication of the new Missal, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) worked with scholars to produce a base translation of the texts of the Missal. No less than nine review teams were then asked to look at these base translations and comment on their fidelity to the Latin as well as their suitability for public worship. Working from these comments, a new version of the base text was prepared. It was called the “proposed text”. Early in 2002, the Roman Missal Editorial Committee was formed. Its members worked with the proposed text. They made adjustments in terms of style, syntax, vocabulary and proclaimablity. Their work produced a new version. Thus, when the commissioners of ICEL met, the members had before them the Latin text, the base text, the proposed text and the Roman Missal Editorial Committee’s text. The bishops of ICEL examined each text according to the same principles of theological accuracy and proclaimablity. Throughout their work, the commissioners of ICEL kept in mind the goal of producing a text that would be accessible to the different language groups within the English-speaking world. Many people speak English, but not all the same. Our accents differ across the English-speaking world. So do our expressions and vocabulary. British athletes play in a team; American athletes play on a team. We say gas; others say petrol. We take an elevator; other English-speakers take a lift. What we call a stroller, they call a pram. Even in one particular country, words are used differently. In New Jersey and New York, we call our dad pop; in Kansas, they call soda pop. Furthermore, words, like people’s dress, change from one generation to the next and from one group to another in the same society. What one individual calls a “swamp”, another more ecologically conscious individual calls “wetlands”. The corporate world routinely uses the noun impact as a transitive verb. People happily follow along. Today, politically correct or linguistically conscious individuals carefully circumvent the word “man” so as not to offend women. Past generations pronounced the word with never the slightest intention of excluding women. But times have changed. We speak now about humankind. Certainly, we have gained inclusivity. But, in opting for the generic word over the specific, we have also lost a note of personalism in the process. Translating a Latin text into English for all English-speaking countries, therefore, requires the expertise of many people. The eleven bishops on the International Commission on English in the Liturgy work with scholars from different English-speaking countries to produce a final text. All involved in the work of translation realize that, in addition to expertise in translating, there is also needed the art of compromise that comes from humility. Once ICEL agreed on a text, it was sent to the individual national conferences as a Green Book. So, there was a Green Book for the Order of Mass, one for the Proper of Seasons, one for Ritual Masses. Each national conference of bishops used its own process of consultation on both a diocesan and conference level. Bishops had the opportunity to consult with priests, laypeople and religious. Then, the bishops forwarded their individual consultation and personal work to the national conference’s Committee on Divine Worship. This committee collated the results and presented them to all the bishops, who then made them their own and forwarded the results to ICEL. Once again ICEL attentively examined each of these comments and incorporated the insights into the production of the final text that is the Gray Book. By October 2008, thirteen Gray Books have been prepared and are in the process of final approval by each national conference. Once a national conference of bishops approves a Gray Book, it is forwarded to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. [Editor’s note: the process of approval by the national conferences is to be completed by November 2009. See “Liturgical Translation Update” and the updated timetable from the US Committee on Divine Worship in AB April 2009.] The Congregation has the responsibility of approving the text in the form in which it is to be used. The Congregation works collaboratively both with ICEL and with the national conferences of bishops. It is aided in its work by Vox Clara. This commission includes bishops from eight English-speaking countries. When texts are presented to the Congregation for approval, Vox Clara advises the Congregation with input from English-speaking experts. Translation Transmits the Faith of the Church I mentioned in detail this long, careful, scholarly, and I must add, pastoral process for a reason. The production of the final liturgical text is a work of immense importance. It deserves and receives all the attention it is given. It is not left to the competence or preference of a few, because it is the expression of the Faith of the whole Church. While individuals will inevitably differ in their judgment on the quality of particular translations, there is no dissent on the vital importance that proper texts have in the Church’s life. Therefore, preparing an English version of the third edition of the Missal has not been simply a matter of translation. Rather, during these years of preparing the new texts, as scholars and pastors debate the value of particular words and styles, the awaiting of a new translation of the Roman Missal has become a moment to enter into a fresh appreciation of the Roman rite. This is a good occasion to understand more deeply its particular style and language of prayer. Liturgical language is important for the life of the Church. Lex orandi, lex credendi. In the liturgy, the words addressed to God and the words spoken to the people voice the Faith of the Church. They are not simply the expressions of one individual in one particular place at one time in history. The words used in liturgy also pass on the faith of the Church from one generation to the next. For this reason, the bishops take seriously their responsibility to provide for the faithful translations of liturgical texts that are both accurate and inspiring. Hence, the sometimes passionate discussion of words, phrases and syntax. The liturgy is the source of the divine life given through the Church as the sacrament of salvation. As Pope Paul VI once said, it is also “the first school of the spiritual life, the first gift which we can give to the Christian people who believe and pray with us…” (Address at the Closing of the Second Session of the Council, December 4, 1963). Wisely, therefore, the Church does not leave the words used in the liturgy to the theology or pastoral sensitivity of any individual celebrant. The words used in the prayers of the liturgy, and most especially the Eucharistic prayer, cannot be casual or improvised. They are not to be changed by the priest. They are freighted with too much meaning and tradition. The new translations also have a great respect for the style of the Roman Rite. Certainly, some sentences could be more easily translated to mimic our common speech. But they are not. And with reason. Let me now briefly comment on seven characteristics of the Latin prayers in the Roman Missal and their translation. Translated Prayers Retain Distinctive Theological Emphasis of Latin - First of all, Latin orations, especially the post-Communion orations, tend to conclude strongly with a teleological or eschatological point. The new translations in English follow the sequence of these Latin prayers in order to end on a strong note. Let me read you just a few examples. From the 12th Sunday in Ordinary Time: Renewed by the nourishment of the Sacred Body and the Precious Blood, we ask your clemency, Lord, that what we celebrate with constant devotion, we may attain with redemption assured. Through Christ our Lord. The phrase what we celebrate with constant devotion is out of its normal order of speech. We would expect the prayer to read in the following way: that we may attain what we celebrate with constant devotion. But this order is now inverted; and this has the effect of giving greater emphasis to the purpose of the celebration — namely, our redemption. From Tuesday of the first week of Lent: Grant us through these mysteries, Lord, that by tempering earthly desires we may learn to love the things of heaven. Here we would expect to say that we may learn to love the things of heaven, by tempering earthly desires. Yet the order is reversed. The result: there is now a strong teleological emphasis on the things of heaven. Let me give another example of an inverted word order. In the collect on the Anniversary of the Dedication of a Church, there is a prayer taken from the Ambrosian Sacramentary. It reads: Let your consecrated people reap the fruits and joy of your blessing, Lord, we pray, so that they may know that what they have offered in bodily worship on this festival day they have received in return as a spiritual gift. Through Christ our Lord. Normally, the direct object, what they have offered, should follow the main verb, receive. But it does not and the emphasis and teleology is kept. In liturgy, we receive a spiritual gift. This use of inversion is a characteristic of the Latin Missal. In the Proper of Seasons, eighteen (14%) of the Prayers after Communion use inversions. Most of these inversions place the adverbial prepositional phrase at the beginning of the clause. The result is powerful. When prayed, the prayer does not simply dribble off into insignificance. Why should we strip the English translation of the distinctive theological emphases of the Latin text? In fact, a slightly non-colloquial word order can lead the listener to a greater attentiveness to the point of the prayer. Biblical References Made Clear - Secondly, in the new translation, there is a deliberate attempt to pass on the biblical references imbedded in the Roman Rite. On the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, we pray in the collect: Almighty everlasting God, You solemnly declared the Christ to be your beloved Son as the Holy Spirit descended upon Him after His baptism in the River Jordan grant that your children of adoption reborn of water and the Holy Spirit, may continue always to be those in whom you are well pleased. In this prayer, our words breathe the words of the Markan baptism narrative (Mk 1:11) that, in turn, have been taken from the first Suffering Servant Song of Isaiah (42:1). Our prayer is scriptural. In the Collect for the First Sunday of Advent, we pray: Grant, we pray, almighty God, that your faithful may resolve to run forth with righteous deeds, to meet your Christ who is coming, so that gathered at His right hand they may be worthy to possess the heavenly kingdom. In the Latin prayer, we find the word occurrentes, “running to meet”. Yet, our current text says nothing about running. It was lost in the translation. However, in the newly translated prayer, we now pray for the resolve to run forth with righteous deeds, to meet your Christ who is coming. Running a race: the image is Pauline. In I Corinthians 9:24-26, Paul says: “Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.” Again in Galatians 2:2; 5:7 and Romans 9:16, Paul uses the same image. With the image of the race, Paul reminds us that the Christian life requires discipline and personal effort. Hence, the new translation is richer, fuller and more biblical than the translation we are using at the present. On the Friday in the Second Week of Advent, we pray this prayer taken from the 8th-century Old Gelasian Sacramentary: Grant your people, we pray, almighty God, to keep wide awake for the coming of your Only-Begotten Son, that as He Himself, the author of our salvation, has taught, we may be alert, with lamps alight, and hurry out to greet Him as He comes. The images of hastening, of staying awake, of meeting Christ with lamps lit are taken right from the parable of the wise and foolish virgins in Matthew 25:1-13. Some prayers do more than weave biblical images into our liturgical prayer. Some prayers place on our lips the very words of the biblical texts themselves. A few examples will suffice. In Eucharistic Prayer III, we will no longer say: “From east to west, a perfect offering is made to the glory of your name.” Instead we pray the words of Malachi 1:11: “… from the rising of the sun to its setting”. Nothing is lost in meaning. A sense of poetry is gained. In the Communion Rite, we will now repeat the words of the humble and compassionate centurion of Matthew 8:8: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word....” Formal equivalency as a method of translation works. Unearthing the biblical allusions, images and words helps us to make the words of Scripture our own. The Word that God speaks to us in Revelation, we speak to Him in prayer The Church Fathers Are Heard - Thirdly, the new translations are careful to keep the allusions from patristic writings. Two examples will suffice to illustrate this. Ex pede Herculem! In the post-Communion prayer for August 28, the memorial of Saint Augustine, we pray: May the partaking of the table of Christ sanctify us, we pray, O Lord, that, being made His members, we may be what we have received. Our words asking God that we may be what we receive play on Saint Augustine’s dictum: “If you have received worthily, you are what you have received” (Sermons 227; cf. 272). In the Collect for Saint Ignatius of Antioch (October 17), we pray: May the offering of our worship be pleasing to you, O Lord, who accepted Saint Ignatius, the wheat of Christ, made pure bread through the suffering of his martyrdom. Through Christ our Lord. This prayer places on our lips the words of the courageous third bishop of Antioch, who, more than any other Church father, expressed his desire for union with Christ: Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ (Epistle to the Romans, 4). Richness in Vocabulary, Images - Fourth, the new translation respects the rich vocabulary of the Roman rite. The post-Communion prayers employ a variety of words such as nourished, fed, recreated, and made new. The collects use words such as: we pray, we beseech, we ask. The many different words of the Latin text are not monotonously translated with the same words. Thus, by being faithful to the Latin text, the new translations enrich the use of our liturgical language in English. - Fifth, the Latin text is cast in concrete images and parallelism. The Latin uses anthropomorphic expressions that add a certain poetry to the prayers. And so, while it is perfectly good English to say: in your pity hear our prayers, the translation respects the poetry of the text and, in the blessing of ashes, says: in your pity give ear to our prayers. Another example. The collect for Ash Wednesday reads: Grant us, Lord, to begin with holy fasting this campaign of Christian service that, as we fight against spiritual evils, we may be armed with the weapons of self restraint. Through our Lord. The images of a military campaign, a fight and weapons are certainly appropriate for the struggle of Lenten discipline against evil. These are not suppressed in the new translation. Exactness, Style Befitting the Liturgy - Sixth, within the new translation, there is a concern for an exactness of vocabulary. Look kindly, almighty God, upon the sacrificial gifts we offer in commemoration of Saint Paul, and grant that we who celebrate the mysteries of the Lord’s Passion may imitate what we now do. Through Christ our Lord. Certainly the phrase imitemur quod agimus might be translated “May we imitate what we enact”. Yet, since the word “enact” might lead people who hear this to think of the Mass as a performance, agere is translated as “do”. The new text reads “that we … may imitate what we now do”. The catechetical, formative aspect of public prayer is thus safeguarded. - Seventh, the Latin prayers are concise and noble in tone. When we frame our prayers in liturgy, the language of the street is not appropriate. The vocabulary of the person in the supermarket, in the gym or around the kitchen table should not be the standard for liturgical language. There is a difference between the language of public discourse used in a presidential address and the language we use in everyday conversation. It is the difference between our active vocabulary and our passive vocabulary. There are many words that we may not use every day, words such as ignominy, penitence and oblation. Yet these words are in our passive vocabulary. We can understand them. Rightly do the translations respect the difference and consistently maintain a noble style of speech befitting the Divine Liturgy. The Next Steps: Preparation for Use In his June 23, 2008 letter granting the recognitio for Ordo Missae I, Cardinal Arinze made an extremely important point about the present moment in terms of the new texts and their use in the liturgy, The granting now of the recognitio to this crucial section of the Roman Missal [that is, Ordo Missae I] will provide time for pastoral preparation for the priests, deacons, and for the appropriate catechesis of the lay faithful. Since this new phase of liturgical renewal is not simply about changing words, but changing hearts, there is a need for proper catechesis before the new texts are put into use. The goal is “full, active, conscious participation in the liturgy”. Therefore, on a number of fronts, work is already being done to make available material that will facilitate this proper catechesis: 1. The USCCB’s Committee on Divine Worship has posted some initial material on its website to help in catechesis. [www.usccb.org] 2. The conference itself is forming a joint committee to make available needed materials. 3. An international group called “the Leeds Group” is working to provide material that then can be adapted and used by each national conference. The work of the Leeds Group has been centering around five basic themes: 1) a general theological reflection on the new Missal; 2) presidential prayers and practices; 3) living the liturgy spiritually; 4) liturgical roles and ministries; and, 5) a walk through the Mass. To make the substance of these reflections user-friendly, the Leeds Group will produce a CD. All this work is necessary to help priests and laity to appreciate and cherish the new Missal. 4. The Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions is working to provide materials specially helpful to diocesan liturgy directors and heads of offices. 5. Musicians and translators have also been working together since the Ordo Missae I received recognitio. ICEL has had consultations, one in Washington and one in Chicago with a very talented, international group. Much work has been done. Much work still will be done on the liturgical texts that we will soon be using. The process that has guided this work continues to involve scholars, laity and bishops, on an international and national level. This is just what one would want so that our new translations open to us the richness of the Roman Missal and serve as an authentic expression of the faith of the Church at prayer. In September 2008, ICEL completed its work of offering a translation of the Missal for the English-speaking world. In the United States, bishops have yet to approve eleven Gray Books and forward them to the Holy See. [Ed. note: Votes on the remaining books will take place at the June and November 2009 USCCB meetings.] Keep in mind… As we await the final modifications and amendments that will come, at this point, we should recall a number of facts: 1. The new texts will be used in many different English-speaking countries. Therefore, the language will not bear the cultural stamp or preference of one particular country. This calls for certain openness on the part of all of us to use words that may be understood, but are not commonly used in our own particular country. 2. Since we use the language of the liturgy to address God, it should be intelligible. This does not, however, mean every word has to be part of the active vocabulary of everyone. 3. In the liturgy, we should use a noble language that lifts us up as well as honors God. From the earliest Latin texts from the 4th century, the style of the language used in prayer differed from street language. In the new translations, the noble, heightened style of liturgical prayer is certainly a gain for all. 4. When we receive the new Roman Missal for the English-speaking world, we will have a work that has aimed at an exact, though not slavishly literal translation. 5. The new Missal will provide prayers that are “marked by sound doctrine, exact in wording and free from all ideological influence” so that “the sacred mysteries of salvation and the indefectible faith of the Church are efficaciously transmitted by means of human language….” (Liturgiam authenticam 3) 6. The new Missal will come as the result of years of growth and understanding. It will improve our liturgical prayer, but it will not be perfect. Perfection will come when the liturgy on earth gives way to that of heaven where all the saints praise God with one voice. 7. When put in use, the common English text for all English-speaking countries will reaffirm in a tangible manner the breadth of our Catholic identity. In conclusion, it is important to remember that this is a moment of organic growth within the liturgical renewal of the Church. As Pope John Paul II said on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: The time has come to renew that spirit which inspired the Church at the moment when the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium was … promulgated.... The seed was sown; it has known the rigors of winter, but the seed has sprouted…. (Vicesimus Quintus Annus 23) Our acceptance of the new Missal is truly “a moment to sink our roots deeper into the soil of tradition handed on in the Roman Rite” (VQA 23). 4) The Sixth Wind? Headlines Trumpet Christian Decline, But A Closer Look Suggests Another Rise In Serious Faith World Magazine http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15477 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2271960/posts June 20, 2009 Marvin Olasky Sometimes it seems that an atheistic tsunami has hit. Anti-Christian books land high on bestseller lists. Polls purportedly show a decline in belief. Newsweek this spring had one of its traditional Easter cover stories on "The Decline and Fall of Christian America." Whenever the conventional wisdom points in a particular direction it's good practice to ask: What if the opposite is true? What if nominal Christian affiliation is declining but serious biblical belief is actually on the rise? What if Christianity in America is not dying, but instead getting its second wind—or maybe its sixth wind? After all, the American colonists were a mixed multitude, with high-minded preachers and a greater number of lowlifes. By the 1730s rampant concern with spiritual decline set the stage for a Great Awakening, with a decline later in the century leading to a Second Great Awakening in the early 1800s. Those second and third winds of American Christianity had died down so much by 1850 that spiritualism was surging—but then came a northern urban revival in 1858, a revival in the Confederate armies during the terrible war, and the post-war growth of urban missions that together could constitute a fourth wind. A fifth wind blew in the 1950s as Billy Graham and others came to the fore amid threats of nuclear war, and that brings us to the present, where we face radical Islam but not Hitler or Soviet missiles. What is the evidence that a sixth wind may now be blowing? The numbers are ambiguous. Recent publication of the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey of 50,000 adults led some to say the heavens are falling, since from 1990 to 2008 the portion of American adults who self-identify as Christians dropped 10 percentage points, from 86 percent to 76 percent. Those who report no religious affiliation almost doubled, from 8 percent to 15 percent. But almost all of that change occurred from 1990 to 2001: since then, essentially no change. Furthermore, a Baylor survey in 2006 showed that two-thirds of Americans who claim no religious affiliation say they believe in God. A 2008 Pew Forum study found two of every five religiously unaffiliated persons still describing religion as important in their lives. Levels of religious affiliation probably measure not belief but how settled Americans are in communities—and the increased number of single, childless adults translates into less settling. Furthermore, Pew reported that "the unaffiliated have one of the lowest retention rates of any of the major religious groups, with most people who were raised unaffiliated now belonging to one religion or another." The survey showed 39 percent of those "raised unaffiliated" are now Protestant, and most of those are in evangelical churches. Another 15 percent of those unaffiliated as children or teens are now in Catholicism or some other faith. In comparison, 80 percent of those raised as Protestants are still Protestants (some 3 percent are Catholic, 4 percent are involved with some other faith, and 13 percent are unaffiliated). We hear often about evangelical kids drifting away—and the danger is certainly real—but we don't hear often enough the good news of God's grace falling on those raised among scoffers. The movement is both ways, but God's pull is stronger than atheism's push. Naomi Schaefer Riley in God on the Quad (2006) reported on the many students who ignore professorial propaganda, forsake secular liberalism, and seek deeper religious faith. Stephen Prothero, who chairs the religion department at Boston University, summarizes the recent polling results this way: "What the data do not tell us is that the United States is becoming 'post-Christian.' If you meet a random American walking down the street, the odds are only one in 62 that he or she will self-identify as atheist or agnostic." In any event, quantitative results tell us little about quality. What if the drop during the 1990s was largely among nominal "Christians" who now respond more honestly to pollsters than they once did? Atheists with axes to grind may exaggerate changes, and some Christians follow the American tradition (begun by the Puritans) of emphasizing decline from the good old days. But here's a question: What are observers without a foot in either camp noticing? I had lunch recently with two Oxford-educated Brits who have just co-authored God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World (Penguin Press, 2009). John Micklethwait is editor-in-chief of The Economist, a weekly newsmagazine that shows skepticism about everything, and Adrian Wooldridge is the magazine's Washington bureau chief. Micklethwait described the duo theologically as "non-involved outsiders," and Wooldridge, an Anglican, added, "I support the church like a flying buttress, from the outside." These outsiders see evident problems: Some churches combine big numbers with shallow commitment. But the two also see that Christianity "helps suburbanites to form communities in the atomized world of the Sunbelt . . . ordinary people all over America to deal with the problems of alcoholism and divorce, wayward children and hopelessness . . . the hard-pressed inhabitants of the inner cities to deal with the chaos that surrounds them." Wooldridge said that researching and writing God Is Back had "made me a better person." When others around the table laughed, not expecting such a comment from a journalist who looks world-weary, he asked, "Why do you laugh?" and emphasized his seriousness. He spoke about how impressed he was with urban pastors like Richard Smith of inner-city Philadelphia. "Christians are the people looking after the homeless, the drug-addicted," Wooldridge stated fiercely. "Where is the atheist homeless shelter? Atheists are only interested in themselves." Wooldridge sees modernization leading not to secularization but to more emphasis on God, as a search for meaning grows more intense, and he argues that "America has reached the future first." He and Micklethwait lay out specifics: "America leads the world in producing religious entrepreneurs . . . religious publishing is undoubtedly growing at a time when the publishing industry in general is struggling. . . . Evangelicals are rediscovering the life of the mind [and] are starting to produce intellectuals again." All of these forays are dangerous—"pastorpreneurs," publishers, and professors all face temptations to glorify themselves rather than God—but, as Wooldridge said, "Evangelicals can choose between arguing for God or retreating." He argues that growing churches provide "social capital" that prevents social anarchy: These churches "keep their buildings open from dawn to dusk and provide a mind-boggling array of services," including schools, counseling and guidance groups, and children's activities. And what of those polls? Wooldridge said, "What we see in the numbers is not a waning of Christianity, but a polarization. The number of people saying that God is central to their lives is going up. We're seeing the death of the Eisenhower era where everyone claimed to be a Christian or a Jew because that was just part of being respected, part of being a good American. Now, people who were lukewarm about religion are now more happy saying that they're atheists or agnostics, and people who claim they're serious about faith are serious about faith." For further thoughts of Micklethwait and Wooldridge, see the interview with them in this issue—but they are not the only observers who have spent time with conservative Christians and come away impressed. The Princeton University Press, an outfit not known for positive portrayal of Christian conservatives, recently published a book with a surprising title, The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right. In it author Jon A. Shields writes, "although my liberal Protestant upbringing initially made me feel out of place hanging out with conservative Christians, I found them disarming, gracious, and more misunderstood than I ever imagined." Shields criticizes liberal journalists for spotlighting extremists and "mistaking such marginal fundamentalists as representative of the Christian Right as a whole." He notes that "the vast majority of Christian Right leaders have long labored to inculcate deliberative norms in their rank-and-file activists—especially the practice of civility and respect; the cultivation of real dialogue by listening and asking questions." Shields particularly scrutinized the pro-life movement and its critics. On one side, "Rank-and-file citizens are encouraged by their leaders to develop into truly Christian activists. The 'mantra' that the president of New York State Right to Life, Lori Kehoe, repeats to her activists is 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" On the other side he describes the reception of pro-life members of Justice for All: "An instructor at the University of New Mexico yelled at JFA volunteers, 'You are the American Taliban.' Professors at the University of Texas at Austin also routinely screamed obscenities at JFA staff as well. As one of the offending professors at Austin confessed, 'I am incandescent with rage.'" Shields stops at that point, but some pro-life leaders are bucking the tide and becoming almost incandescent with optimism. For example, Frank Pavone of Priests for Life notes that we're seeing a "strong and ever-growing involvement of young people in all aspects of the fight to end abortion." He also points out that among older people working either in abortion businesses or pro-life centers, the flow of conversions is in one direction—from pro-abortion to pro-life. Liberal secularists downplay such stories: It would be front page news if a pro-lifer were to repent of saving babies, but the many instances of abortion industry veterans repenting are like trees falling in the forest. (A broader measure of attitudes last month also received little attention: A Gallup Poll reported that 51 percent of Americans surveyed called themselves "pro-life" and only 42 percent "pro-choice." Gallup began asking that either-or question in 1995, and this is the first time a majority has embraced "pro-life." Ultrasound machines, pro-life pregnancy resource centers, and a generation of regret-filled women are all having an impact.) Some preachers also downplay positive changes, sometimes because of the Puritan heritage of preaching about decline, sometimes because Christians have bought into secular media reports that emphasize church problems, sometimes because of political pessimism or beliefs that things will get worse and the Rapture will then occur. And yet, a new book by critic Terry Eagleton, Reason, Faith, and Revolution, published by the decidedly non-theistic Yale University Press, asks, "Why are the most unlikely people, including myself, suddenly talking about God?" Eagleton's answer: Nothing else—not science, not reason, not liberalism, not economics—works. He concludes, "If ever there was a pious myth and a piece of credulous superstition, it is the liberal-rationalist belief that, a few hiccups apart, we are all steadily en route to a finer world." Another cause for optimism: the growing number of Hispanic and Asian churchgoers. For example, Soong-Chan Rah notes in The Next Evangelicalism (IVP, 2009) that when he was preparing to move to the Boston area, "Every story that I heard or concern that was raised seemed to assume that the city of Boston represented the worst of a post-Christian region, and that secular humanism had completely overtaken that city." Rah continues, "When I arrived in Boston I found a very different scenario. I found that Christianity was not only alive in Boston, it was flourishing. . . . In 1970 the city of Boston was home to about 200 churches. Thirty years later, there were 412 churches. The net gain in the number of churches was in the growth of the number of churches in the ethnic and immigrant communities." Immigration is helping Christianity in America. While many mainline WASP churches move toward theologically liberal irrelevance and therefore lose members who want more than a social club, Asians bulwark urban but theologically conservative churches like Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan, and Hispanics do the same throughout the United States but particularly in the Southwest. Some churches, including some mega-churches, have shallow teaching, but the more thoughtful pastors push to go deeper. The reasons for media insinuations of Christianity's decline are easy to grasp. One is tradition, as the wistfulness of nonbelievers repeats itself in every generation: Thomas Jefferson, Clarence Darrow, and many others have predicted Christianity's imminent end. But another reason is the tendency of some reporters to make erroneous assumptions based on convenience samples. They look at mainline churches and miss ethnic and immigrant churches. They associate Christianity with a particular type of gospel proclamation and political involvement, then note the passing of Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy. Evidence for Christian short-run pessimism does abound. Samuel John Stone's line in "The Church's One Foundation" (1868)—that "with a scornful wonder men see her sore oppressed, by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed"—could have been written yesterday about Episcopalians and others. Warren Cole Smith's A Lover's Quarrel with the Evangelical Church (Authentic, 2009) rightly criticizes "Body-Count Evangelism" and calls for churches to emphasize spiritual depth. But let's look at what is happening to Christianity's opposite, atheism. Alister McGrath documented in The Twilight of Atheism (2004) the 20th-century verdict: atheism weighed and found wanting in Communist countries and many Western ones as well. The popping up of several New York Times bestsellers over the past five years shows that those hostile to Christianity have some discretionary income, but publishing successes do not root out atheism's underlying problem both rationally and emotionally: Atheism denies the glory of God that the heavens declare, and atheism cannot by its very nature offer any hope. Meanwhile, Christianity's main religious opponents, Islam and Hinduism, can only hold onto their flocks by banning or persecuting missionaries and attempting to restrict discussion. They fear open debate, but Christians can say what John Milton wrote in 1644: "Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?" In Europe and America, Christianity's opponents try to avoid free and open encounters by using ridicule. Janie Cheaney reported in WORLD's June 6 issue that British literary lion A.N. Wilson has dropped his atheism, but I want to quote his account of why he became one: "Like most educated people in Britain and Northern Europe (I was born in 1950), I have grown up in a culture that is overwhelmingly secular and anti-religious. The universities, broadcasters and media generally are not merely non-religious, they are positively anti. To my shame, I believe it was this that made me lose faith and heart in my youth. It felt so uncool to be religious. With the mentality of a child in the playground, I felt at some visceral level that being religious was unsexy." Christianity's ride through 2,000 years, and in America for 400, has always been a roller coaster: up and down, slow and fast, sometimes sideways, always planned by God but unpredictable for man. The first time around a roller coaster is terrifying for children. They do not know that a power beyond them is in control. Like A.N. Wilson but even more so, most of last month's and this month's college graduates have been exposed to years of anti-Christian propaganda from academia and media. Uncool. Unsexy. But look at how experience has helped Wilson: He now states publicly his belief in Christianity because of "the confidence I have gained with age. Rather than being cowed by them, I relish the notion that, by asserting a belief in the risen Christ, I am defying all the liberal clever-clogs on the block." Is a sixth wind blowing? I don't know, but I was also born (like Wilson) in 1950, and confidence gained with age leads me to assert that there's no reason to be depressed. Truth trumps everything, including liberal clever-clogs. The apostle Paul was not unduly impressed by temporary ascents and descents. His confidence did not depend on which emperor was in power or who the next emperor might be. He knew that a benevolent reign would allow more to hear the gospel, but a hard reign would create inspiring testimonies that would show how the gospel sustained believers amid pressure—so Christ's cause would win either way. Paul from prison told the Philippians that "what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel." Pau 5) The Murder Of Civil Life American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_murder_of_civil_life.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2271912/posts June 15, 2009 Bruce Walker The putrid comments by David Letterman about Sarah Palin and her daughter, and the dethronement of Carrie Prejean for the vice of honesty, bring home just have savagely civil life has been murdered by the Left. We no longer have a civil public life. It has been crushed between pinchers of enraged nihilism and fantasy causes. "Feminists" or the Ladies Auxiliary of Marxist Enmity (LAME) should be threatening boycotts of the CBS or demanding the de-politicization of beauty contests, but that presumes LAME cares about women: its disciples care only about venting their private fury towards an empty life. What has happened to Sarah and Carrie has happened to our whole social fabric. Decent people relating in normal lives have traditionally been able to share values: truth, learning, amusement, family, country and faith. These have been disappearing from our social lives; each strangled and then hauled off for a clandestine burial. Consider what has happened to truth in modern life. Barack Obama invents stories about his relatives visiting Auschwitz -- words that are whole cloth -- and no one much cares. The descent accelerated when Bill Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky and almost everything else, and has continued unabated. The very act of lying, once considered evil, is now considered proof of shrewdness. How well someone can "spin" truth is considered rather like how a tennis player or a baseball pitcher can spin a ball. If truth does not matter, then the accumulation of truth which we call learning cannot matter either. Public education and academia is simply re-education. Children and college students are taught "facts" that round out political indoctrination. There was a time when education meant exposing growing minds to a universe of facts which supported conflicting opinions and grasping the thinking behind those opinions. The myth of the intolerant medieval university or old public school systems of America is evidence of just how little our modern totalitarians actually know: debate, controversy, cognition, and schools of thought were the norm, not the exception. The very term "schools of thought," no longer exists. In our murdered civil life, there is "the school of thought," surrounded by barbed wire. Amusement too has died. In its place are spite, angst, degradation, imbecility, and madness dressed up as entertainment. Channel surfing, even when the surf is as long as the Pacific Coast, shows just how empty the once bright stage of entertainment has become. We loved Lucy, but not the untalented and unfunny women who came fifty years after her. Singers like Perry Como have been replaced by puerile, forgettable nebbishes. Once films like It's a Wonderful Life joined us into a common, happy heart, but now the vacuum we call "Hollywood" cannot produce anything better than bad remakes of old movies. Families once were families. Fathers, mothers, grandparents, sisters, brothers, cousins, children -- the glorious linkage of life which reproduction and its inventor, God, gave us. In many ways, family was the center of life. "Marry in haste, repent at leisure" was true wisdom. Holidays revolved around families. People grew up in families. Houses were homes, and homes were where the heart was. Now we haggle over the meaning of words like "marriage" and talk about the lives of unborn babies in terms of "choice." Family in our world, like in the totalitarian nightmares of Stalin and Hitler, has been crushed into a vague, weak, feeling and nothing more. Once the overwhelming majority of Americans understood that the greatest blessing of their lives was simply being born in the land of liberty. Now vast numbers of our fellow countrymen actually view the chosen home of tens of millions of refugees as simply an ordinary nation or, depending upon how marinated they are in modern culture, view America as the primary source of misery and injustice in the world. Faith, too, has been purged from our society. Faith in anything is considered suspicious unless it is faith in the bland materialism of the ant colony so some form of paganism with brutal, animal values. Transcendent moral ideals repel so many of us that the community of faith is almost an underground resistance in some dreary Orwellian regime. Expressing faith (ask Sarah and Carrie) is an invitation to the ugliest sort of mob lynch parties. The Shabbat candles must be kindled in the closest and the sign of the fish drawn in the dust with a stick. Strip honesty, knowledge, amusement, family, country, and belief from communal life and nothing, much, is left. That is where we are today. That is why the blathering television set and the chattering classrooms seem so utterly empty. That is why so many young people, born after the end of civil life, accept any dream world so completely. Civil life has died. More specifically, it has been murdered by those who find no meaning in life and no purpose for existence. They wish us to live as they do: desperately alone. 6) Confessions Of A Computer Hater Inside Catholic http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6241&Itemid=48 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2273043/posts June 16, 2009 Peter Kreeft Make no mistake: I do not merely hate computers. I loathe, fear, despise, curse, and have constant torture and dismemberment fantasies about them. I know there are others out there like me, an entire unorganized underground. I've talked to some of them, in conspiratorial whispers. We are not cyberterrorists -- viruses hurt us more than anyone else. But we need a support network. We need a manifesto. This isn't it. The university that employs me gave every one of its nearly 1,000 professors a free computer. Having had no luck with IBM PCs in the past, I asked for an Apple. "They're user-friendly," said friendly users. One fact should have made me suspicious: Computers are the only thing the university has ever given away. It doesn't even give away free books. Just think about it: Who gives expensive stuff away? Missionaries and drug dealers. Oh, the devil gave away an apple, too. And look what came of that. But apparently no one remembers. So here I sit with my Apple, and of course it's inedible. I have had it for three days now and haven't yet achieved the lofty goal of being able to plug it in. In quest of that distant utopia, I've found every accessory conceivable by the mind of man -- as well as several that are not -- but not anything as simple as a plug and a wire. Seven different experts have recommended seven different things to "solve my problem," including routers, ethernets, "airports," a different service provider, a separate modem, special instructional courses, and buying a new computer. I am told I can get instructions on how to plug my Apple in from the Apple Web site on the Internet. But to get into that, I need to plug my Apple into the Internet. Gotcha! So I turned it on from the battery. And before the battery wore out, I got past the first gate of the giant's castle. At this point, the screen demands my "user name and password." I have already been assigned two different "user names," but the computer accepted neither. I finally figured out my true "user name." (I will not tell you how, but I will say this: It was much more difficult than in the fantasy video games, in which all you have to do is outwit a leprechaun, steal its gold, bribe the wicked witch, seize the magic sword, and slay the giant ogre.) I then clicked on "log in," and -- and the arrogant &*^% laughed at me. The light on the screen shook back and forth, glowing and glimmering like the face of a department-store Santa. I went back to the Apple store for help. But of course the computer people there were not capable of understanding a question like How Do You Make It Work? And by the way, am I the first to notice that computer people are eerily computer-like… so polite, so programmed, so humorless? Clearly, they've made computers in their own image. After three days of unrelenting failure, I marched into the office of those generous university people who gave me the computer and plunked it down on their desk, together with all its tentacled, alien accessories. "How much do I have to pay you to take this beast away from me?" I asked. "It's a protection racket, right?" No, thankfully, the takeaway was free. But of course there was a catch: Everyone in the university has to have a computer, either Apple or PC. We have freedom of choice -- so long as we choose between Beelzebub and Mephistopheles. And that's how I returned to the snuggly arms of Bill Gates and his monopoly. Despite my ordeal, I had not lost hope. "My name is Peter," I told myself, "and the Hell of Gates will not prevail against me." After all, after a mere twelve years of Herculean labors, I have actually figured out how to use Microsoft Word. Here's the secret: You must trick the computer. If it knows you're indenting, or paragraphing, or numbering, it will correct you. Only by doing something else entirely will the computer give you what you really want. Another successful trick is to visualize the computer screen as a map of the United States, and then translate all the incredibly uninteresting computer instructions into commands like: 1. Click on the little square gray box with the "x" in it that appears at Seattle, Washington. 2. If the screen changes and three white rectangles appear in Minneapolis, then click on the "x" in the westernmost extremity of the northernmost rectangle. 3. If the moon is not full, you will see everything on the screen quiver with fear for a second, disappear, and then reappear like the Living Dead from the tomb, and a large coffin-shaped box will appear in New Orleans. 4. Do not click on it, for if you do, you'll get a large gray message extending from Denver to Atlanta that says you have performed an illegal operation. It will also declare a "permanent fatal error" and may threaten a complete shutdown, or a meltdown. 5. If all else fails, pray to St. Michael the archangel. Let him deal with it. When Xerox Machines Strike My enemy isn't just IBM or Apple; it's everything digital. I am allergic to digitalia. For example, some years ago our department got its first digital Xerox machine. The brand wasn't actually Xerox, but we called it that because the generic term "reproduction machine" made it sound like a Mormon father. (The old unit was a big, ugly contraption made by the A. B. Dick Company -- I won't tell you what we called that one.) I kept jamming the new machine -- I alone. I knew that it recognized me, probably by the smell of my fear. I tested my hypothesis scientifically, as follows, with our department secretary present: I pushed button B. It jammed. The secretary fixed the jam. She pushed button B. It did not jam. I pushed button B. It jammed. The secretary fixed the jam. She pushed button B. It did not jam. I pushed button B. It jammed. You get the idea. Groundhog Day. Another secretary watched this demonstration of obvious supernatural influence with a peasant's skepticism of miracles. She said, "Peter, this is nonsense. I'm going to get to the bottom of it. Push the button again while I'm leaning over it, looking inside." I did. The machine did not jam. Instead, it squirted a jet of black ink at her, ruining the expensive new silk blouse she'd bought that morning for a party that night. We called in the Xerox people to fix their spawn. When they arrived, we told them what happened. They didn't believe us, even though there were three eyewitnesses. "It is physically impossible for this machine to squirt ink," said the Xerox man. He was probably right. Of course, with Satan all things are possible. The Great Computer Conspiracy About ten years ago, a man phoned me, identifying himself as "one of the six most intelligent men in the world according to the New York Times." He had authored a best-selling book on the dangers of the computer revolution and had read a line in one of my books that identified me as a possible co-conspirator. He tried to convince me, in all seriousness, that the Abolition of Man was imminent at the hands of the faceless, impersonal mind of universal cyberspace. Its strategy was amazingly simple: Get everyone to voluntarily reformat all human thinking from analog to digital patterns. Once nondigital thinking ceases, there will be only one Thinker, and each of us will be a cell -- or a digit -- in the single giant digital brain. I got off the phone as soon as I could, convinced the man was crazy as all hell. I now suspect he was a prophet. Consider: A few years ago, the SAT people dropped the "analogies" part of their universal test, because no one could do it anymore. The minds of the computer literate are no longer literate. Indeed, people often ask me how students have changed over my 40 years of teaching. The most dramatic change is in logic. Students used to find ordinary logic fairly easy and mathematical logic (digital logic) fairly hard. Now it's exactly the opposite. If there's a longer line than usual at a store's cash register, you can be pretty sure they just installed a new, superefficient computer network. Whenever your car's fuel exhaust system, the bank, the library, the phone, City Hall, or the U.S. Army doesn't work, you can expect the same excuse. And have you ever met a single human being who has actually been helped by clicking on the "Help" icon? I grant there's nothing conclusive here. But still, food for thought. Here's one more morsel: When we used quill pens, marriages were indissoluble, like the words we wrote on the paper. People took their words seriously then. They were set in stone, like cuneiform. (I'll bet the ancient Babylonians didn't have many divorces.) Then came fountain pens, and then ballpoint pens, and typewriters, and electronic typewriters, and word processors… With each step, divorce multiplied. Computers are the final step. Words are now as ephemeral as little glimmers of light on a screen, effortlessly changeable. No-fault editing and no-fault divorce are two sides of the same thought pattern. The sacredness of words -- especially promises, especially the wedding vow -- is the glue that holds society together. For promises bind together people, and bind together the generations, and bind together the past, the present, and the future. Therefore, to save families, and to save society, abolish computers and restore quill pens. How 24 Out of 24 People Refused to Become Multimillionaires I'm going to share a secret with you. It's the simplest and easiest road to fabulous wealth available today. I've shared this idea with 24 computer people thus far, and not one has ever disagreed with any one of the following three facts: 1. If you do this, you will become very, very rich. 2. It is technologically very easy and cheap to do. 3. No one will ever do it. Do what? Make a Dumb Computer (I call it a DC). What's a DC, you ask? Simply put, it's a computer that can do nothing but type… a typewriter with a screen, in effect. It's not smarter than you are. It doesn't lose your files. It doesn't give you attitude. It's a donkey -- a dumb, slow, reliable servant. Build this, my friend, and it will sell like crack cocaine. Millions of dummies like me would love a DC. I could give you a hundred names of people who would gladly pay $2,000 for one. The market is vast... academics, authors, absentminded professors, poets, people with attention deficit disorder, conspiracy theorists who fear technology, pre-digital dinosaurs more than 50 years old, and people who don't have kids to bail them out when they can't find the computer's "on" button. But while the DC would sell, it'll never be made. Computer people just don't think that way. Concluding Unscientific Postscript Behind all my clowning is a serious point about how technology has changed not only the world but ourselves as well. You see, we are not only very, very good at technology. We are technology. It gives us our identity. It is what distinguishes our culture most spectacularly -- and most successfully -- from all others in history. Furthermore, it's stupid to fear technology. (A bird's nest is a form of technology.) It's even stupid to fear computers -- our brains are computers, after all. And so I do not recommend that we become Luddites, but saints; that is, I counsel detachment. We need not teetotalers but designated drivers at the digital orgy. Of course, I don't really believe in a Great Conspiracy either. My concern isn't that computer technology is an alien, but that it is not -- that it's our own new self-created identity, our voluntary self-encrutching. I fear that perhaps we've fallen for a great irony: King Arthur using Excalibur as a cane instead of a weapon. Already there are many computer people who feel more at home in virtual reality than in reality itself. But reality has the remarkable power of forcing us to live in it whether we like it or not, and even whether we know it or not. Flesh dreaming that it is spirit does not cease to be flesh. And if reality is computer technology's first casualty, time is its second. Now that our lives are computerized, we all have less free time, not more. Computers are the apogee of efficiency, but all the time they have saved us -- where did it go? I have badgered dozens of "experts" in all fields with this simple child's question: Where has the time saved by all our time-saving devices gone? So far only one person has answered it: Pascal, the inventor of the world's first working computer. (Malcolm Muggeridge said that is the one unforgivable sin that prevents his canonization.) Pascal's answer, in a word, is "diversion": diversion from ourselves and from the emptiness of our over-full lives. And this reveals the third and final casualty of computer technology: self-knowledge. We demand external fullness to cover up the internal emptiness, constant noise to cover up the sound of silence. Thus we multiply mice to drive away the uncomfortable elephants of Fear and Death and God. We have become masters of self-deception. As for me, I'm done with it. I've found my way out with a relic as rare as a chastity belt: a beautiful little manual typewriter. It has no will, no devious designs, no nefarious stratagems. It's the honest, obedient slave the Industrial Revolution was intended to create. It's content to be my creature, and I adore it. Of course it takes longer to use than a computer, but who cares? Time ceases to matter when you're in love. 7) 10 Abortion-Promoting Catholic Colleges NCRegister.com http://www.ncregister.com/daily/10_abortion-promoting_catholic_colleges/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2272859/posts June 16, 2009 Tim Drake Parents wondering what their hard-earned money is supporting at Catholic colleges and universities might be interested in the latest findings from the Cardinal Newman Society. The organization has discovered 10 Catholic colleges and universities that are promoting student internships with organizations whose missions or activities are directly opposed to the Church’s moral teachings on issues related to abortion and marriage. “Under what definition of ‘Catholic education’ do students receive academic credit to work for leading pro-abortion organizations?” asked Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society. The “Dirty Deca” includes the following schools: Boston College - recommends opportunities for students to work ‘pro bono’ for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. College of St. Benedict & St. John’s University - the school’s Gender and Women’s Studies program promotes internship opportunities with the pro-abortion Feminist Majority Foundation and organizations supporting same-sex marriage. DePaul University - the institution’s Women’s and Gender Studies program offers credit for internships, noting that students have interned with abortion provider Planned Parenthood and the Chicago Women’s Health Center, which offers emergency contraceptive services and alternative insemination for “lesbians, bisexual, and queer couples, single women of any sexual orientation, and trans people.” Georgetown University - permits students to receive university funding for interning at abortion advocacy organizations. Loyola University of Chicago - their website lists opportunities for internships and volunteer opportunities at Chicago’s National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority Foundation, Planned Parenthood, and the Chicago Abortion Fund. St. Edward’s University - has allowed students to work at NARAL Pro-Choice Texas to fulfill a “Community Service in Women’s Studies” credit requirement. St. Norbert College - the college’s Women’s and Gender Studies program recommends internships at several pro-abortion and same-sex marriage promoting organizations, including NOW, Legal Momentum, Planned Parenthood, the National Women’s Health Network, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and PFLAG. University of Notre Dame - the university’s Gender Studies program offers internships for academic credit at places such as the National Organization for Women. University of San Francisco - the school’s Media Studies program has promoted internships with the California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League and Girlfriends Magazine. 8) Why Women Are Unhappy Townhall.com http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2009/06/16/why_women_are_unhappy http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2272748/posts June 16, 2009 Phyllis Schlafly The National Bureau of Economic Research released a study to be published soon in the American Economic Journal that shows women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970. It's no surprise that this has stimulated much comment. This study covers the same time period as the rise of the so-called women's liberation or feminist movement. The correlation demands an explanation. You can read the entire study at www.eagleforum.org/links. One theory advanced by the authors, University of Pennsylvania economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, is that the women's liberation movement "raised women's expectations" (sold them a bill of goods), making them feel inadequate when they fail to have it all. A second theory is that the demands on women who are both mothers and jobholders in the labor force are overwhelming. I'm neither an economist nor a psychologist, but I'll join the conversation with my own armchair analysis. Another theory could be that the feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy in which their true worth will never be recognized and any success is beyond their reach. Feminist organizations such as the National Organization for Women held consciousness-raising sessions where they exchanged tales of how badly some man had treated them. Grievances are like flowers -- if you water them, they will grow, and self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness. Another theory could be the increase in easy divorce and illegitimacy (now 40 percent of American births are to single moms), which means that millions of women are raising kids without a husband and therefore expect Big Brother government to substitute as provider. The 2008 election returns showed that 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama, perhaps hoping to be beneficiaries of his "spread the wealth" policies. In the pre-1970 era, when surveys showed women with higher levels of happiness, most men held jobs that enabled their wives to be fulltime homemakers. The private enterprise system constantly produces goods that make household work and kiddie care easier (such as dryers, dishwashers and paper diapers). Betty Friedan started the feminist movement in the late 1960s with her book "The Feminine Mystique," which created the myth that suburban housewives were suffering from "a sense of dissatisfaction" with their alleged-to-be-boring lives. To liberate women from the home that Friedan labeled "a comfortable concentration camp," the feminist movement worked tirelessly to make the role of fulltime homemaker socially disdained. Economic need played no role in the feminist argument that marriage is archaic and oppressive to women. A job in the labor force was upheld as so much more fulfilling than tending babies and preparing dinner for a hard-working husband. Women's studies courses require students to accept as an article of faith the silly notion that gender differences are not natural or biological but are social constructs created by the patriarchy and ancient stereotypes. This leads feminists to seek legislative corrections for problems that don't exist. A former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal wrote in her book "Spin Sisters" that the anorexic blondes on television are every day selling the falsehood that women's lives are full of misery and threats from men. Bernard Goldberg calls the mainstream media "one of America's most pro-feminist institutions." According to feminist ideology, the only gender-specific characteristic is that men are naturally batterers who make all women victims. On that theory, the feminists conned Congress into passing the Violence Against Women Act (note the sex discriminatory title), which includes a handout of a billion dollars a year to finance their political, legislative and judicial goals. The feminists whine endlessly using their favorite word "choice" in matters of abortion, but they reject choice in gender roles. The Big Mama of feminist studies, Simone de Beauvoir, said: "We don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children ... precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign to make husbands and fathers unnecessary and irrelevant. Most divorces are initiated by women, and more women than men request same-sex marriage licenses in Massachusetts so that, with two affirmative-action jobs plus in vitro fertilization, they can create a "family" without husbands or fathers. Despite the false messages of the colleges and the media, most American women are smart enough to reject the label feminist, and only 20 percent of mothers say they want full-time work in the labor force. I suggest that women suffering from unhappiness should look into how women are treated in the rest of the world, and then maybe American women would realize they are the most fortunate people on earth. 9) On Cyril And Methodius: "Each People Should … Express The Salvific Truth With Their Own Language" Zenit News Agency http://www.zenit.org/article-26200?l=english http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2274155/posts June 17, 2009 Pope Benedict XVI Here is a translation of the address Benedict XVI gave today at the general audience in St. Peter's Square, part of a catechetical series he is giving about great writers of the Church in the Middle Ages. * * * Dear brothers and sisters: Today, I would like to speak about Sts. Cyril and Methodius, brothers of the same parents and in the faith, known as the apostles to the Slavic people. Cyril was born in Thessalonica, son of the imperial magistrate Leon, in 826-827. He was the youngest of seven children. As a child, he learned the Slavic language. At age 14, he was sent to Constantinople to be educated and was accompanied by the young emperor, Michael III. During those years, he was introduced into the various university disciplines, among others, dialectics, and had Photius as his teacher. After having rejected a brilliant matrimony, he decided to receive holy orders and became the librarian in the patriarchate. Shortly afterward, wanting to retreat from society, he hid himself in a monastery, but soon was discovered and entrusted with teaching sacred and profane sciences, a task that he fulfilled so well that he won the title of "philosopher." Meanwhile, the brother Michael (born around the year 815), after a career in public administration in Macedonia, abandoned the world around the year 850 to retreat to monastic life on Mount Olympus, in Bithynia, where he received the name Methodius (the monastic name had to begin with the same letter as the baptismal name) and became the hegumen of the monastery of Polychron. Attracted by the example of his brother, Cyril also decided to leave teaching to dedicate himself to meditation and prayer on Mount Olympus. However, years later (around 861), the imperial government entrusted him with a mission among the Khazars of the Azov Sea, who had asked to have sent to them a scholar who would know how to debate with the Jews and the Saracens. Cyril, accompanied by his brother Methodius, lived for a long time in Crimea, where he learned Hebrew. There, he also looked for the body of Pope Clement I, which had been buried in that location. He found his tomb and when he returned with his brother, he brought the precious relics. Upon arriving in Constantinople, the two brothers were sent by Emperor Michael III to Moravia; the prince of Moravia, Ratislav, had made a precise petition [to the emperor]: "Our nation," he said, "since it has rejected paganism, observes Christian law. But we do not have a teacher that is capable of explaining to us the true faith in our language." The mission very promptly had uncommon success. In translating the liturgy to the Slavic language, the two brothers won great affection among the people. This, however, stirred up hostility against them among the Frankish clergy, who had previously arrived to Moravia and considered the territory as belonging to their ecclesial jurisdiction. To justify themselves, in the year 867, the two brothers traveled to Rome. During the trip, they stopped in Venice, where there was a heated discussion with those who defended the so-called trilingual heresy: These considered that there were only three languages in which God could be licitly praised -- Hebrew, Greek and Latin. Obviously, the two brothers opposed this with determination. In Rome, Cyril and Methodius were received by Pope Adrian II, who went out to meet them in procession to worthily receive the relics of St. Clement. The Pope had also understood the great importance of their exceptional mission. From the middle of the first millennium, in fact, the Slavic people had established themselves in great numbers in those territories situated between the two parts of the Roman Empire -- the East, and the West, which experienced tension between themselves. The Pope intuited that the Slavic peoples could carry out the role of bridge, contributing in this way to conserve unity between the Christians of both parts of the Empire. Therefore, he did not hesitate in approving the mission of the two brothers in the Great Moravia, welcoming and approving the use of Slavic in the liturgy. The Slavic books were placed on the altar of Santa Maria di Phatmé (St. Mary Major) and the Slavic liturgy was celebrated in the basilicas of St. Peter, St. Andrew and St. Paul. Unfortunately, in Rome, Cyril became gravely ill. Sensing that death was approaching, he wanted to consecrate himself totally to God as a monk in one of the Greek monasteries of the city (probably in St. Praxedes) and he took the monastic name Cyril (his baptismal name was Constantine). Later, he insistently beseeched his brother Methodius, who had meanwhile been consecrated a bishop, that he would not abandon the mission in Moravia and that he would return to those peoples. He directed this invocation to God: "Lord, my God … hear my prayer and maintain faithful to you the flock that you have placed before me. Free them from the heresy of the three languages, gather all of them in unity, and make this people that you have chosen live in harmony in the true faith and upright confession." He died Feb. 14, 869. Faithful to the commitment taken on with his brother, the next year, 870, Methodius returned to Moravia and Pannonia (today, Hungary), where he again faced the violent ill-will of the Frankish missionaries who imprisoned him. He did not get discouraged and when, in the year 873, he was liberated, he actively dedicated himself to the organization of the Church, attending to the formation of a group of disciples. The merit of these disciples was in overcoming the crisis that broke out after the death of Methodius, which occurred April 6, 885. Persecuted and imprisoned, some of these disciples were sold as slaves and taken to Venice, where they were rescued by a functionary from Constantinople, who permitted them to return to the Balkan Slavic countries. Welcomed in Bulgaria, they were able to continue the mission began by Methodius, spreading the Gospel in the "land of the Rus." God, in his mysterious providence, in this way availed of the persecution to save the work of the holy brothers. From [this work], literary documentation also remains. It is enough to think of works such as the "Evangeliario," (liturgical pericopes of the New Testament) [and] the "Salterio," various liturgical texts in Slavic, on which the two brothers worked. After the death of Cyril, it is owed to Methodius and to his disciples, among other things, the translation of all of sacred Scripture, the "Nomocanon" and the "Book of the Fathers." Briefly summarizing the spiritual profile of the two brothers, above all it must be noted the passion with which Cyril approached the writings of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, learning from him the value of language in the transmission of Revelation. St. Gregory had expressed the desire that Christ would speak through him: "I am a servant of the Word, for this I place myself at the service of the Word." Wanting to imitate Gregory in this service, Cyril asked Christ to speak in Slavic through him. He introduces his work of translation with the solemn invocation: "Hear, Slavic peoples, hear the Word that proceeds from God, the Word that encourages souls, the Word that leads to the knowledge of God." Actually, already years before the prince of Moravia asked Emperor Michael III to send missionaries to his land, it seems that Cyril and his brother Methodius, surrounded by a group of disciples, were working on a project of collecting the Christian dogmas in books written in Slavic. Then it was clearly seen that there was a need to have new graphic signs that were more adequate for the spoken language: Thus was born the Glagolitic alphabet, which modified later, was designated with the name "Cyrillic," in honor of its inspirer. This was a decisive factor for the development of the Slavic civilization in general. Cyril and Methodius were convinced that the various peoples could not consider that they had fully received Revelation until they had heard it in their own language and read it with the characters proper to their own alphabet. To Methodius falls the merit of ensuring that the work began by his brother would not remain sharply interrupted. While Cyril, the "philosopher," tended toward contemplation, he [Methodius] was directed more toward the active life. In this way, he was able to establish the foundations of the successive affirmation of what we could call the "Cyril-Methodian idea," which accompanied the Slavic peoples in the various historical periods, favoring cultural, national and religious development. Pope Pius XI already recognized this with the apostolic letter "Quod Sanctum Cyrillum," in which he classified the two brothers as "sons of the East, Byzantines by their homeland, Greeks by origin, Romans by their mission, Slavs by their apostolic fruits" (AAS 19 [1927] 93-96). The historic role that they fulfilled was afterward officially proclaimed by Pope John Paul II who, with the apostolic letter "Egregiae Virtutis Viri," declared them co-patrons of Europe, together with St. Benedict (AAS 73 [1981] 258-262). Indeed, Cyril and Methodius are a classic example of what is today referred to with the term "inculturation": Each people should make the revealed message penetrate into their own culture, and express the salvific truth with their own language. This implies a very exacting work of "translation," as it requires finding adequate terms to propose anew the richness of the revealed Word, without betraying it. The two brother saints have left in this sense a particularly significant testimony that the Church continues looking at today to be inspired and guided. [The Holy Father then greeted the people in various languages. In English, he said:] Dear Brothers and Sisters, As we continue our catechesis on the early Christian writers of the East and the West, we now turn to the brothers Saints Cyril and Methodius. They were born in Thessalonica in the early ninth century. Cyril, whose baptismal name was Constantine, was educated at the Byzantine Court, ordained a priest, and became an acclaimed teacher of sacred and profane sciences. When his brother Michael became a monk, taking the name of Methodius, Cyril also decided to embrace the monastic life. Having retrieved the relics of Pope Clement I during a mission in Crimea, the brothers successfully preached Christianity to the people of Moravia. Inventing an alphabet for the Slavonic language, they together with their disciples translated the Liturgy, the Bible and texts of the Fathers, shaping the culture of the Slav peoples and leaving an outstanding example of inculturation. Pope Adrian II received them in Rome and encouraged their missionary work. When Cyril died in Rome in 869, Methodius continued the mission in spite of persecution. After his death in 885, some of his disciples, providentially released from slavery, spread the Gospel in Bulgaria and in "the Land of the Rus". In recognition of the brothers’ vast influence, they were named Co-Patrons of Europe by Pope John Paul II. May we imitate their strong faith and their Christian wisdom as we bear witness to the Gospel in our daily lives! I offer a warm welcome to the participants in the 2009 Church Music Festival. I greet the pilgrims from the parishes of Sacred Heart, Dontozidon, Ilapayan and Tuaran from the Archdiocese of Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, accompanied by Archbishop John Lee, and also the pilgrims from Saint Francis Parish, Singapore. I am also pleased to greet the many student groups, and all the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors. I extend my greetings to the various religious leaders present today who have gathered in Rome for an International Conference of interreligious dialogue. I commend this initiative organized by the Italian Bishops’ Conference in collaboration with the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I am confident that it will do much to draw the attention of world political leaders to the importance of religions within the social fabric of every society and to the grave duty to ensure that their deliberations and policies support and uphold the common good. Upon all those taking part I invoke an abundance of the Almighty’s blessings. 10) Letter Of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI Proclaiming A Year For Priests On The 150th Anniversary Of The "Dies Natalis" Of The Cure Of Ars (The Priesthood Is The Love Of The Heart Of Jesus) VultusChristi.org http://vultus.stblogs.org/2009/06/the-pristhood-is-the-love-of.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2274783/posts June 18, 2009 Pope Benedict XVI Dear Brother Priests, On the forthcoming Solemnity of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Friday 19 June 2009 - a day traditionally devoted to prayer for the sanctification of the clergy -, I have decided to inaugurate a "Year for Priests" in celebration of the 150th anniversary of the "dies natalis" of John Mary Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests worldwide. This Year, meant to deepen the commitment of all priests to interior renewal for the sake of a more forceful and incisive witness to the Gospel in today's world, will conclude on the same Solemnity in 2010. "The priesthood is the love of the heart of Jesus", the saintly Curé of Ars would often say. This touching expression makes us reflect, first of all, with heartfelt gratitude on the immense gift which priests represent, not only for the Church, but also for humanity itself. I think of all those priests who quietly present Christ's words and actions each day to the faithful and to the whole world, striving to be one with the Lord in their thoughts and their will, their sentiments and their style of life. How can I not pay tribute to their apostolic labours, their tireless and hidden service, their universal charity? And how can I not praise the courageous fidelity of so many priests who, even amid difficulties and incomprehension, remain faithful to their vocation as "friends of Christ", whom he has called by name, chosen and sent? I still treasure the memory of the first parish priest at whose side I exercised my ministry as a young priest: he left me an example of unreserved devotion to his pastoral duties, even to meeting death in the act of bringing viaticum to a gravely ill person. I also recall the countless confreres whom I have met and continue to meet, not least in my pastoral visits to different countries: men generously dedicated to the daily exercise of their priestly ministry. Yet the expression of Saint John Mary also makes us think of Christ's pierced Heart and the crown of thorns which surrounds it. I am also led to think, therefore, of the countless situations of suffering endured by many priests, either because they themselves share in the manifold human experience of pain or because they encounter misunderstanding from the very persons to whom they minister. How can we not also think of all those priests who are offended in their dignity, obstructed in their mission and persecuted, even at times to offering the supreme testimony of their own blood? There are also, sad to say, situations which can never be sufficiently deplored where the Church herself suffers as a consequence of infidelity on the part of some of her ministers. Then it is the world which finds grounds for scandal and rejection. What is most helpful to the Church in such cases is not only a frank and complete acknowledgment of the weaknesses of her ministers, but also a joyful and renewed realization of the greatness of God's gift, embodied in the splendid example of generous pastors, religious afire with love for God and for souls, and insightful, patient spiritual guides. Here the teaching and example of Saint John Mary Vianney can serve as a significant point of reference for us all. The Curé of Ars was quite humble, yet as a priest he was conscious of being an immense gift to his people: "A good shepherd, a pastor after God's heart, is the greatest treasure which the good Lord can grant to a parish, and one of the most precious gifts of divine mercy". He spoke of the priesthood as if incapable of fathoming the grandeur of the gift and task entrusted to a human creature: "O, how great is the priest! ... If he realized what he is, he would die... God obeys him: he utters a few words and the Lord descends from heaven at his voice, to be contained within a small host...". Explaining to his parishioners the importance of the sacraments, he would say: "Without the Sacrament of Holy Orders, we would not have the Lord. Who put him there in that tabernacle? The priest. Who welcomed your soul at the beginning of your life? The priest. Who feeds your soul and gives it strength for its journey? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, bathing it one last time in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest, always the priest. And if this soul should happen to die [as a result of sin], who will raise it up, who will restore its calm and peace? Again, the priest... After God, the priest is everything! ... Only in heaven will he fully realize what he is". These words, welling up from the priestly heart of the holy pastor, might sound excessive. Yet they reveal the high esteem in which he held the sacrament of the priesthood. He seemed overwhelmed by a boundless sense of responsibility: "Were we to fully realize what a priest is on earth, we would die: not of fright, but of love... Without the priest, the passion and death of our Lord would be of no avail. It is the priest who continues the work of redemption on earth... What use would be a house filled with gold, were there no one to open its door? The priest holds the key to the treasures of heaven: it is he who opens the door: he is the steward of the good Lord; the administrator of his goods ... Leave a parish for twenty years without a priest, and they will end by worshiping the beasts there ... The priest is not a priest for himself, he is a priest for you". He arrived in Ars, a village of 230 souls, warned by his Bishop beforehand that there he would find religious practice in a sorry state: "There is little love of God in that parish; you will be the one to put it there". As a result, he was deeply aware that he needed to go there to embody Christ's presence and to bear witness to his saving mercy: "[Lord,] grant me the conversion of my parish; I am willing to suffer whatever you wish, for my entire life!": with this prayer he entered upon his mission. The Curé devoted himself completely to his parish's conversion, setting before all else the Christian education of the people in his care. Dear brother priests, let us ask the Lord Jesus for the grace to learn for ourselves something of the pastoral plan of Saint John Mary Vianney! The first thing we need to learn is the complete identification of the man with his ministry. In Jesus, person and mission tend to coincide: all Christ's saving activity was, and is, an expression of his "filial consciousness" which from all eternity stands before the Father in an attitude of loving submission to his will. In a humble yet genuine way, every priest must aim for a similar identification. Certainly this is not to forget that the efficacy of the ministry is independent of the holiness of the minister; but neither can we overlook the extraordinary fruitfulness of the encounter between the ministry's objective holiness and the subjective holiness of the minister. The Curé of Ars immediately set about this patient and humble task of harmonizing his life as a minister with the holiness of the ministry he had received, by deciding to "live", physically, in his parish church: As his first biographer tells us: "Upon his arrival, he chose the church as his home. He entered the church before dawn and did not leave it until after the evening Angelus. There he was to be sought whenever needed". The pious excess of his devout biographer should not blind us to the fact that the Curé also knew how to "live" actively within the entire territory of his parish: he regularly visited the sick and families, organized popular missions and patronal feasts, collected and managed funds for his charitable and missionary works, embellished and furnished his parish church, cared for the orphans and teachers of the "Providence" (an institute he founded); provided for the education of children; founded confraternities and enlisted lay persons to work at his side. His example naturally leads me to point out that there are sectors of cooperation which need to be opened ever more fully to the lay faithful. Priests and laity together make up the one priestly people and in virtue of their ministry priests live in the midst of the lay faithful, "that they may lead everyone to the unity of charity, 'loving one another with mutual affection; and outdoing one another in sharing honour'" (Rom 12:10). Here we ought to recall the Second Vatican Council's hearty encouragement to priests "to be sincere in their appreciation and promotion of the dignity of the laity and of the special role they have to play in the Church's mission. ... They should be willing to listen to lay people, give brotherly consideration to their wishes, and acknowledge their experience and competence in the different fields of human activity. In this way they will be able together with them to discern the signs of the times". Saint John Mary Vianney taught his parishioners primarily by the witness of his life. It was from his example that they learned to pray, halting frequently before the tabernacle for a visit to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. "One need not say much to pray well" - the Curé explained to them - "We know that Jesus is there in the tabernacle: let us open our hearts to him, let us rejoice in his sacred presence. That is the best prayer". And he would urge them: "Come to communion, my brothers and sisters, come to Jesus. Come to live from him in order to live with him... "Of course you are not worthy of him, but you need him!". This way of educating the faithful to the Eucharistic presence and to communion proved most effective when they saw him celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Those present said that "it was not possible to find a finer example of worship... He gazed upon the Host with immense love". "All good works, taken together, do not equal the sacrifice of the Mass" - he would say - "since they are human works, while the Holy Mass is the work of God". He was convinced that the fervour of a priest's life depended entirely upon the Mass: "The reason why a priest is lax is that he does not pay attention to the Mass! My God, how we ought to pity a priest who celebrates as if he were engaged in something routine!". He was accustomed, when celebrating, also to offer his own life in sacrifice: "What a good thing it is for a priest each morning to offer himself to God in sacrifice!". This deep personal identification with the Sacrifice of the Cross led him - by a sole inward movement - from the altar to the confessional. Priests ought never to be resigned to empty confessionals or the apparent indifference of the faithful to this sacrament. In France, at the time of the Curé of Ars, confession was no more easy or frequent than in our own day, since the upheaval caused by the revolution had long inhibited the practice of religion. Yet he sought in every way, by his preaching and his powers of persuasion, to help his parishioners to rediscover the meaning and beauty of the sacrament of Penance, presenting it as an inherent demand of the Eucharistic presence. He thus created a "virtuous" circle. By spending long hours in church before the tabernacle, he inspired the faithful to imitate him by coming to visit Jesus with the knowledge that their parish priest would be there, ready to listen and offer forgiveness. Later, the growing numbers of penitents from all over France would keep him in the confessional for up to sixteen hours a day. It was said that Ars had become "a great hospital of souls". His first biographer relates that "the grace he obtained [for the conversion of sinners] was so powerful that it would pursue them, not leaving them a moment of peace!". The saintly Curé reflected something of the same idea when he said: "It is not the sinner who returns to God to beg his forgiveness, but God himself who runs after the sinner and makes him return to him". "This good Saviour is so filled with love that he seeks us everywhere". We priests should feel that the following words, which he put on the lips of Christ, are meant for each of us personally: "I will charge my ministers to proclaim to sinners that I am ever ready to welcome them, that my mercy is infinite". From Saint John Mary Vianney we can learn to put our unfailing trust in the sacrament of Penance, to set it once more at the centre of our pastoral concerns, and to take up the "dialogue of salvation" which it entails. The Curé of Ars dealt with different penitents in different ways. Those who came to his confessional drawn by a deep and humble longing for God's forgiveness found in him the encouragement to plunge into the "flood of divine mercy" which sweeps everything away by its vehemence. If someone was troubled by the thought of his own frailty and inconstancy, and fearful of sinning again, the Curé would unveil the mystery of God's love in these beautiful and touching words: "The good Lord knows everything. Even before you confess, he already knows that you will sin again, yet he still forgives you. How great is the love of our God: he even forces himself to forget the future, so that he can grant us his forgiveness!". But to those who made a lukewarm and rather indifferent confession of sin, he clearly demonstrated by his own tears of pain how "abominable" this attitude was: "I weep because you don't weep", he would say. "If only the Lord were not so good! But he is so good! One would have to be a brute to treat so good a Father this way!". He awakened repentance in the hearts of the lukewarm by forcing them to see God's own pain at their sins reflected in the face of the priest who was their confessor. To those who, on the other hand, came to him already desirous of and suited to a deeper spiritual life, he flung open the abyss of God's love, explaining the untold beauty of living in union with him and dwelling in his presence: "Everything in God's sight, everything with God, everything to please God... How beautiful it is!". And he taught them to pray: "My God, grant me the grace to love you as much as I possibly can". In his time the Curé of Ars was able to transform the hearts and the lives of so many people because he enabled them to experience the Lord's merciful love. Our own time urgently needs a similar proclamation and witness to the truth of Love: Deus caritas est (1 Jn: 4:8). Thanks to the word and the sacraments of Jesus, John Mary Vianney built up his flock, although he often trembled from a conviction of his personal inadequacy, and desired more than once to withdraw from the responsibilities of the parish ministry out of a sense of his unworthiness. Nonetheless, with exemplary obedience he never abandoned his post, consumed as he was by apostolic zeal for the salvation of souls. He sought to remain completely faithful to his own vocation and mission through the practice of an austere asceticism: "The great misfortune for us parish priests - he lamented - is that our souls grow tepid"; meaning by this that a pastor can grow dangerously inured to the state of sin or of indifference in which so many of his flock are living. He himself kept a tight rein on his body, with vigils and fasts, lest it rebel against his priestly soul. Nor did he avoid self-mortification for the good of the souls in his care and as a help to expiating the many sins he heard in confession. To a priestly confrere he explained: "I will tell you my recipe: I give sinners a small penance and the rest I do in their place". Aside from the actual penances which the Curé of Ars practiced, the core of his teaching remains valid for each of us: souls have been won at the price of Jesus' own blood, and a priest cannot devote himself to their salvation if he refuses to share personally in the "precious cost" of redemption. In today's world, as in the troubled times of the Curé of Ars, the lives and activity of priests need to be distinguished by a forceful witness to the Gospel. As Pope Paul VI rightly noted, "modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses". Lest we experience existential emptiness and the effectiveness of our ministry be compromised, we need to ask ourselves ever anew: "Are we truly pervaded by the word of God? Is that word truly the nourishment we live by, even more than bread and the things of this world? Do we really know that word? Do we love it? Are we deeply engaged with this word to the point that it really leaves a mark on our lives and shapes our thinking?". Just as Jesus called the Twelve to be with him (cf. Mk 3:14), and only later sent them forth to preach, so too in our days priests are called to assimilate that "new style of life" which was inaugurated by the Lord Jesus and taken up by the Apostles. It was complete commitment to this "new style of life" which marked the priestly ministry of the Curé of Ars. Pope John XXIII, in his Encyclical Letter Sacerdotii nostri primordia, published in 1959 on the first centenary of the death of Saint John Mary Vianney, presented his asceticism with special reference to the "three evangelical counsels" which the Pope considered necessary also for priests: "even though priests are not bound to embrace these evangelical counsels by virtue of the clerical state, these counsels nonetheless offer them, as they do all the faithful, the surest road to the desired goal of Christian perfection". The Curé of Ars lived the "evangelical counsels" in a way suited to his priestly state. His poverty was not the poverty of a religious or a monk, but that proper to a priest: while managing much money (since well-to-do pilgrims naturally took an interest in his charitable works), he realized that everything had been donated to his church, his poor, his orphans, the girls of his "Providence", his families of modest means. Consequently, he "was rich in giving to others and very poor for himself". As he would explain: "My secret is simple: give everything away; hold nothing back". When he lacked money, he would say amiably to the poor who knocked at his door: "Today I'm poor just like you, I'm one of you". At the end of his life, he could say with absolute tranquillity: "I no longer have anything. The good Lord can call me whenever he wants!". His chastity, too, was that demanded of a priest for his ministry. It could be said that it was a chastity suited to one who must daily touch the Eucharist, who contemplates it blissfully and with that same bliss offers it to his flock. It was said of him that "he radiated chastity"; the faithful would see this when he turned and gazed at the tabernacle with loving eyes". Finally, Saint John Mary Vianney's obedience found full embodiment in his conscientious fidelity to the daily demands of his ministry. We know how he was tormented by the thought of his inadequacy for parish ministry and by a desire to flee "in order to bewail his poor life, in solitude". Only obedience and a thirst for souls convinced him to remain at his post. As he explained to himself and his flock: "There are no two good ways of serving God. There is only one: serve him as he desires to be served". He considered this the golden rule for a life of obedience: "Do only what can be offered to the good Lord". In this context of a spirituality nourished by the practice of the evangelical counsels, I would like to invite all priests, during this Year dedicated to them, to welcome the new springtime which the Spirit is now bringing about in the Church, not least through the ecclesial movements and the new communities. "In his gifts the Spirit is multifaceted... He breathes where he wills. He does so unexpectedly, in unexpected places, and in ways previously unheard of... but he also shows us that he works with a view to the one body and in the unity of the one body". In this regard, the statement of the Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis continues to be timely: "While testing the spirits to discover if they be of God, priests must discover with faith, recognize with joy and foster diligently the many and varied charismatic gifts of the laity, whether these be of a humble or more exalted kind". These gifts, which awaken in many people the desire for a deeper spiritual life, can benefit not only the lay faithful but the clergy as well. The communion between ordained and charismatic ministries can provide "a helpful impulse to a renewed commitment by the Church in proclaiming and bearing witness to the Gospel of hope and charity in every corner of the world". I would also like to add, echoing the Apostolic Exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis of Pope John Paul II, that the ordained ministry has a radical "communitarian form" and can be exercised only in the communion of priests with their Bishop. This communion between priests and their Bishop, grounded in the sacrament of Holy Orders and made manifest in Eucharistic concelebration, needs to be translated into various concrete expressions of an effective and affective priestly fraternity. Only thus will priests be able to live fully the gift of celibacy and build thriving Christian communities in which the miracles which accompanied the first preaching of the Gospel can be repeated. The Pauline Year now coming to its close invites us also to look to the Apostle of the Gentiles, who represents a splendid example of a priest entirely devoted to his ministry. "The love of Christ urges us on" - he wrote - "because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died" (2 Cor 5:14). And he adds: "He died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them" (2 Cor 5:15). Could a finer programme be proposed to any priest resolved to advance along the path of Christian perfection? Dear brother priests, the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the death of Saint John Mary Vianney (1859) follows upon the celebration of the 150th anniversary of the apparitions of Lourdes (1858). In 1959 Blessed Pope John XXIII noted that "shortly before the Curé of Ars completed his long and admirable life, the Immaculate Virgin appeared in another part of France to an innocent and humble girl, and entrusted to her a message of prayer and penance which continues, even a century later, to yield immense spiritual fruits. The life of this holy priest whose centenary we are commemorating in a real way anticipated the great supernatural truths taught to the seer of Massabielle. He was greatly devoted to the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin; in 1836 he had dedicated his parish church to Our Lady Conceived without Sin and he greeted the dogmatic definition of this truth in 1854 with deep faith and great joy." The Curé would always remind his faithful that "after giving us all he could, Jesus Christ wishes in addition to bequeath us his most precious possession, his Blessed Mother". To the Most Holy Virgin I entrust this Year for Priests. I ask her to awaken in the heart of every priest a generous and renewed commitment to the ideal of complete self-oblation to Christ and the Church which inspired the thoughts and actions of the saintly Curé of Ars. It was his fervent prayer life and his impassioned love of Christ Crucified that enabled John Mary Vianney to grow daily in his total self-oblation to God and the Church. May his example lead all priests to offer that witness of unity with their Bishop, with one another and with the lay faithful, which today, as ever, is so necessary. Despite all the evil present in our world, the words which Christ spoke to his Apostles in the Upper Room continue to inspire us: "In the world you have tribulation; but take courage, I have overcome the world" (Jn 16:33). Our faith in the Divine Master gives us the strength to look to the future with confidence. Dear priests, Christ is counting on you. In the footsteps of the Curé of Ars, let yourselves be enthralled by him. In this way you too will be, for the world in our time, heralds of hope, reconciliation and peace! With my blessing. From the Vatican, 16 June 2009. BENEDICTVS PP. XVI 11) Government-Run Churches, Can It Happen Here? Break Point http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=11915 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2274627/posts 6/18/09 Chuck Colson In China, Christians have a choice: Join a government-approved church—which is constantly monitored by the authorities—or join an underground church. Thank heavens things like that don’t happen in the West, you may be thinking. Think again. In Britain, the government has begun sticking its nose in church business, telling churches what to do. According to the Daily Telegraph, starting next year, the British government is going to begin forcing churches and other religious institutions to hire open, practicing homosexuals. It will happen under the provisions of the so-called Equity Bill, which forbids discrimination against homosexuals or transsexuals. The law would “cover almost all church employees,” according to Deputy Equities Minster Maria Eagle. “The circumstances in which religious institutions can practice anything less than full equality are few and far between,” Eagle said. Church groups, she said, “cannot claim that everything they run is outside the scope of anti-discrimination law.” What’s next—regulating the content of sermons? I’m not kidding. According to Eagle, “Members of faith groups have a role in making the argument in their own communities for greater” acceptance of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Maybe it would simplify things if the government simply wrote the sermons for the pastors. The Equity Law could lead to some interesting situations. What happens if a church, under pressure, hires a gay youth minister—and orders him to teach kids about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior? And I can only imagine the reaction of a British mosque when the religion police orders it to hire a lesbian secretary. Neil Addison, a Catholic barrister who is an expert on religious discrimination laws, told the Telegraph that the Equity Law “is a threat to religious liberty.” “What we are losing,” he said, “is the right for [churches] to make free choices.” He’s right. To put it more bluntly, the government is beginning to run the churches. And if they succeed, it will be the end of religious freedom in Britain. Legislation like the Equity Law should concern Americans. So-called “social reforms” that begin in Europe soon wash up on our own shores. And then, what will happen to the Church? Will we put our congregations under the authority of Caesar? Or will we resist and, if need be, abandon our elegant buildings and, like our faithful brethren in China, form underground churches? The Bible teaches that the followers of Christ will be tested. We ought to be in prayer for the church in Great Britain, asking God to guide it as the government bears down. Second, we ought to be preparing for similar laws here. Many churches are already under great pressure by homosexual activists to violate their own teachings under the guise of “fairness”—a much abused word. This, by the way, is not a hysterical rant. The threat is very real. Third, we ought to remind our neighbors that the First Amendment was written not just to protect the government from churches, but more so to protect churches from the government. 12) Why Stop At The Vestibule Of The Castle Of Pleasure? Catholic Pundit http://catholicpunditwannabe.blogspot.com/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2277156/posts June 22, 2009 It is amazing now to think back on the fact that Fulton J. Sheen, a Catholic archbishop, had a weekly TV show that was vastly popular in the 50s and 60s, in which he defended the Catholic faith. We used to watch it every week when my grandma could convince my uncle to give up watching equally popular comedian Milton Berle on another channel. According to Wikipedia, when Sheen won an Emmy, Berle quipped, 'He's got better writers.'" I came upon Sheen's book Three to Get Married on Amazon just now when I was browsing in reaction to the current tempest about Christopher West's interpretation of John Paul II's Theology of the Body, after West was interviewed on ABC news. See this link for one reaction to the debate. Alice von Hildebrand has objected to West's popularizing of the topic and points out that her late husband Dietrich covered the topic of married love and its sacramentality and mystery more appropriately. I have to agree that von Hildebrand's books are more decorous on the subject of the role of what used to be called love in Holy Matrimony than West's rather racy approach, but now I think Fulton Sheen's writings may be better than either Hildebrand or West because what Sheen writes is both respectful and engaging. With all due respect, Hildebrand (and Pope John Paul II) on the subject are a bit dry. Here is an excerpt from Sheen's Three to Get Married. [W]hen sex is divorced from love there is a feeling that one has been stopped at the vestibule of the castle of pleasure; that the heart has been denied the city after crossing the bridge. Sadness and melancholy result from such a frustration of destiny, for it is the nature of man to be sad when he is pulled outside himself, or exteriorized without getting any nearer his goal. There is a closer correlation between mental instability and the animal view of sex than many suspect. I have been trying to put similar thoughts into words for quite some time. I pity the young people who have been trained to believe that sex expression is a good in itself, and that "relationships" must be "free," conditional, and nonexclusive. How many people these days would decide to marry someone without trying them out first? How many people think of marriage at all when they consider starting a "relationship"? Nobody talks about the pain of creating a profound union with another person (which occurs as an often unwanted result of intimacy), or about the feeling of being exteriorized, pulled outside oneself that ensues when the "relationship" stops. Sheen's words give a vivid glimpse of the real toll the experience of intimacy without commitment takes on a person. Here is another quote from earlier in Sheen's book: What some people love is not a person but the experience of being in love. The first is irreplaceable, the second is not. As soon as the glands stop reacting with their pristine force, couples who identified emotionalism and love claim they no longer love each other. The above quote is a bit dated sounding, unfortunately, because the word love itself is often exorcised from the equation. People routinely throw themselves into sexual relations out of desire (Boy is s/he hot!), then decide later if there is a chance they might love each other. Since love and commitment are often absent from the start, it is a miracle if a couple can actually get to the point of labeling their provisional "relationship" as love, especially since passion diminishes after a while. But even if a couple makes it to the love phase, they may redefine what they feel as "not love" at any time, either before or after marriage. Think of the many movies that show couples living together sometimes even in the final stages of wedding planning who find their "true loves" and dump their current partner without a thought. But then, you don't have to go to the movies to see people dumping their partners, wedded or not. The marriage bond is also seen as provisional. The words "Til death do us part" and "For better or worse." have no meaning. Sheen was writing at a time when there was little open cohabitation (which was against the law) and when promiscuity was much less acceptable, but Sheen still has a lot to say about all these topics, and about how important God is in the picture. Two glasses that are empty cannot fill each other up. There must be a fountain of water outside the glasses in order that they may have communion with each other. It takes three to make love. Okay, the water/fountain/love/God/true communion and satisfaction metaphor may not work completely, but you get the idea. Maybe this is one example where Christopher West has said it better. In his recent ABC news interview, West said: "The problem is we have kicked God out of the bedroom. Do the math on that. If God is love, and we kick him out of the bedroom, then what's going on in your bedroom? It ain't love. ... We have to bring God and sex back together," said West. Speaking of God in the bedroom brings to mind a related quote I found recently in the conversion story of Marilyn Prever, in Honey from the Rock,: Sixteen Jews Find the Sweetness of Christ. Prever, who is a very funny woman, wrote that when she finally realized they were ready to seek instruction, she and her husband went to a priest that someone told her was "easy to talk to." When we brought up the topic of birth control, intending to get instructions in natural family planning, he hastened to assure us that "it's none of the Church's business what you do in the privacy of your bedroom." As I imagined all the mortal sins I could commit with impunity, from first-degree murder to blasphemy, simply by closing my bedroom door, I realized that something serious must have happened to the Catholic Church... That priest and others like him have "kicked God out of the bedroom." Something serious HAS happened in that many Catholics, lay and clergy and religious decline to obey or defend the Church's teaching about the evils of contraception, extramarital "sex," cohabitation, and divorce. I pray that the misperceptions that even many clergy hold on these vitally important matters are cleared up and there is a widespread return to accepting the teaching authority of the Church by those who call themselves Catholic. All these things that our are society thinks of as good are evils, because they go against God's plan for our happiness. We violate the laws of nature and of nature's God to our peril. Christ forbade divorce because marriage is a holy thing that is a Symbol (with a capital S) of His Love for the Church, a Love that is summarized by West as Free, Total, Faithful, and Fruitful. When people practice intimacy outside of marriage or while setting up barriers to life within marriage, it is a grave misuse of a God-given gift, and that misuse creates unmeasurable amounts of harm that ripple out to the whole of every society in the world. 13) Cardinal Says Catholics Humbled By Anglicans' Decision To Join Church The Catholic Spirit http://thecatholicspirit.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2039&Itemid=33 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2277043/posts 6/22/09 Teresita Johnson Catholics are humbled by the stories of former Anglicans who were faced with a decision and stepped out in faith to join the Catholic Church, said Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston. "The Catholic Church understands and appreciates the sacrifices made by former Anglican clergy and laity who have made the journey as individuals or as communities to full communion with the Catholic Church," he said June 12. "Truly, Rome is home and a place of abiding in our pilgrimage to the father," noted the cardinal in a keynote address at the 2009 Anglican Use Conference in Houston. The June 11-13 gathering explored the pastoral provision that the Vatican approved in 1980 allowing retention of some elements of Anglican identity in liturgy when a number of Episcopalians from the same congregation or the same area enter full Catholic communion. That provision was included when the Vatican granted permission for special U.S. procedures to admit into the Catholic priesthood former Episcopal priests who have become Catholic. In 1976, after the Episcopal Church -- the U.S. member of the Anglican Communion -- decided to ordain women to the priesthood, some former Episcopal priests and laity sought full communion with the Catholic Church. In 2003, the Episcopal Church's decision to ordain an openly gay man prompted other Episcopalians to join the Catholic Church. In his address Cardinal DiNardo said that the gift of Catholic unity is sometimes taken for granted by those in the Catholic Church, but this cohesiveness is not lost on those seeking communion. The cardinal observed the eventual reconciliation of church communities was anticipated by the Second Vatican Council, but he acknowledged that Christian unity "may not be realized in our own time." In the meantime, the church is "necessarily dependent on the personal and individual model to further the vision of Catholic unity," he explained. "The pastoral provision has made it possible for Anglicans to know the blessing of full communion but it is important that you simply do not walk away from your old relationships, especially those that may have been damaged by the tragic conflicts of contemporary Anglicanism," the cardinal said. The 2009 conference was hosted by Our Lady of Walsingham Catholic Church in Houston, one of only eight Anglican-use communities in the U.S. Besides Houston there are Anglican-use Catholic parishes in San Antonio and Arlington, Texas, and in Columbia, S.C. In addition, there are Anglican-use congregations sharing the facilities of regular Catholic parishes in Boston, Corpus Christi, Texas, and Scranton, Pa. About 150 people from 14 states and two foreign countries made the trek to Houston to attend the conference. Activities and lectures were held on the grounds of Our Lady of Walsingham and also at St. Mary Seminary. In his remarks Father James Ramsey, Our Lady of Walsingham's pastor, talked about the historical and ecumenical significance of the Anglican-use provision. "It was the first time since the Reformation 500 years ago that the Roman Catholic Church made it possible for a Reformation tradition to return to the Catholic Church and bring its tradition with it," he said. While traditional Anglicans will find something familiar, Father Ramsey said, Catholics accustomed to the Latin-rite Mass will notice some differences in Mass celebrated in an Anglican-use church. "I think they would notice a dignity, a reverence, a respect, a certain grace, transcendence, a sense of the holy and of the sacred," he said. "Those would be starters that were always a part of our Anglican tradition." He said the Anglican-use Mass follows the same order as the Latin-rite Mass. Old English is used throughout, and most of the Mass, including the readings, is sung. In addition, there is a generous amount of incense and use of a communion rail. Also, the priest faces the altar. Father Eric Bergman, a former Episcopal priest who is pastor at the Anglican-use church in Scranton, joined the Catholic Church in 2005, when it became evident, he said, that he and other conservative Episcopalians were becoming an oddity in his denomination. He credits the Catholic Church's unwavering stance on the dignity of human life and its view on the sanctity of the marriage bond as major factors in his decision to become a Catholic. Under the pastoral provision, he and his wife and children and his parishioners all entered the Catholic Church at the same time. Joe Blake, president of the Anglican Use Society, reported that about 120 Episcopal and Anglican priests have become Catholic priests since 1980. Most are married and working in Latin-rite parishes. Approximately 700 laypeople have made the transition into the Catholic Church with their priests. 14) Confessions Of A Lapsed Atheist American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/confessions_of_a_lapsed_atheis.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2276740/posts 6/21/2009 Jenn Q. Public Do you believe in God? Really? And you're willing to admit it in public? Oops. Sorry, for a moment I slipped back into the arrogant Atheism of my youth. Before my parents had children, they decided to raise their kids in a secular home. We had gifts at Christmas time and chocolate covered matzoh during Passover, but there was no religion and certainly no God. When I was in grade school, God was just a kind of nondescript character who popped up in Little House on the Prairie books from time to time. He seemed like a decent enough fellow, but was more or less a bit player who didn't have much to say. After my grandfather died when I was seven, his Baptist minister lifted me up in his arms and told me, "It's all right, Grandpa's with God now." At that moment, I could feel my dress was hiked up in the back and all I could think about was pulling it back down. But later, I asked around and discovered that God was our Heavenly father, whatever that was supposed to mean. I figured, who better to ask about my Heavenly father than my earthly father, but when I did he laughed. He wasn't amused in a "kids say the darnedest things" kind of way. He was laughing derisively at the idea that my mother's family believed in God. And thus began my introduction to Atheism. There are people who call themselves atheist who are simply nonbelievers, and then there are the big "A" Atheists for whom Atheism is almost a religion. This quasi-religious doctrine isn't neutral on the existence of other religions; rather, Atheism is a virulently anti-theistic creed characterized by sneering contempt for religion and a profoundly dogmatic bigotry toward people of faith. Want to know how Atheists see the rest of us? I grew up learning from my father that Atheism is rational, and therefore, religious belief is irrational; Atheism is defined by logic, religious faith by fantasy; and science is real while religion is make believe. Faith, I was taught, requires a willful stifling of reason. The Torah, the Gospels, the Qur'an? All woefully inaccurate, laughably inconsistent fictions used to encourage belief in an illusion for the purpose of social control. My curiosity in religion surfaced again in seventh grade when several of my friends were planning Bat Mitzvahs. Surely my friends weren't ignorant enough to actually believe in God, were they? The answer was no. For most of these Reform Jews, this celebration marked the official end to the tedium of Hebrew school. Most of their families were Ethical Culturists with a recreational interest in preserving their Jewish cultural identity. In other words, they too were Atheists. By the time I reached high school, having had little contact with religion, I was convinced that people of faith were credulous and unenlightened. They gravitated toward soothing tales of God and afterlife to help them deal with their own mortality. At best, I considered belief in God an anachronism, a quaint vestige of days gone by, on par with superstitions about wicked thoughts causing birth defects. At my extremely liberal college, I was exposed to even more militant Atheism. It was there that I learned the mere whiff of religiosity is worthy of denigration. Many of the people I met approached religion with something between disdain and loathing, and considered all religious belief a form of fanaticism. Christians in particular were characterized as knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fundies (and that was in polite company.) Fortunately my mother taught me enough manners that I kept my bias to myself. In this new environment, my Atheism was more than evidence of good reasoning, it was a socially desirable badge of intellectual superiority. Make no mistake: Atheists think they're smarter than you. Atheism isn't simple skepticism. It is a certainty that believers are wrong, and by extension, intellectually inferior. Religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, is nothing more than a crutch for dupes. But Atheists aren't content to leave religion as a mere object of ridicule. They want it cleansed from public life. And enlightened as they are, they've come up with quite the pretense for justifying the righteousness of their bigotry: they are defending the vision of our Founding Fathers from a dominionist conspiracy to establish Christianity as the state religion. You see, for liberal Atheists, the only thing worse than religion is the Religious Right, a term they use to encompass all Christian conservatives. And what better way to siphon fuel from the Religious Right than to convince Americans that the government is perpetually on the verge of becoming a theocracy? And so, they accuse local governments of trampling the Constitution in the name of God and they find subliminal Christian iconography in political ads. They wring new meanings from Thomas Jefferson's notion of separation between church and state, and condemn our country's motto and the status of Christmas as a national holiday. But above all, Atheists stoke fear among religious and nonreligious alike that conservatives view government as a tool to force religion down your throat. Pope-slandering buffoon Bill Maher, something of a patron saint among Atheists, has called religion "the ultimate hustle." Last fall, Maher's fellow liberal Chris Matthews, a self-described Catholic, roundly criticized Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for talking about prayer in a "secular environment" and complained that she made the Republican Party look more like a church tent than a big tent. In March, Matthews complained, "Why does everything sound like the '700 Club' with this Party now?" Such examples of anti-religious bias can be found every day on cable news, network television, and in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. As my politics strayed right of center after college, I realized I wanted no part of that Maher/Matthews worldview based in elitism and the ridicule of others. I made the transition from Atheist to atheist to agnostic, and have since discovered why it is often said that religion is experiential. There was a time when I would have preferred any manner of torture to admitting the possibility of a higher power. These days, I'm proud to say I lost my faith in the Atheist creed. 15) Get Back In The Closet Townhall.com http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/06/22/get_back_in_the_closet http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2276714/posts June 22, 2009 Mike Adams Dear UNC-Wilmington Students: It’s getting close to time to start another semester. That means that it’s time to lay down the rules for all of my classes. I’m going to continue to use all the rules I’ve used before, which can be found in my syllabus. But, starting this semester, I’m adding three more rules. Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgendered students (GILBERTS) need to pay especially close attention. First of all, GILBERTS will not be allowed to mention their status as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or trans-gendered. A few semesters ago, a gay student in one of my classes said – right in the middle of class, mind you – “I’m gay.” It offended me when he said that. That is why I am banning such statements for the duration of the semester. The simple awareness of the presence of gays in my classes offends me. No other reason need be offered. Just shut up and comply with the rule. Second of all, GILBERTS will not be allowed to offer even mild criticisms of those who disagree with them. Last semester, a gay student was talking to one of his female friends – probably one of those fag hags - when he said “I want to marry my boyfriend some day if the bigots will let me.” Since I oppose gay marriage, for obvious religious reasons, it offended me when he made that statement. That is why I am banning any such statements for the duration of the semester. Even mild criticism of my beliefs offends me. No other reason need be offered. Just shut up and comply with the rule. Finally, GILBERTS will not be allowed to state their beliefs concerning the origins of human rights. Last semester, a gay student said he supported gay marriage because he felt in his soul that it was the right thing to do. It offended me when he said that. That is why I am banning such statements for the duration of the semester. I’m simply offended when people discuss their beliefs about the origins of human rights, especially when it entails discussing their feelings. No other reason need be offered. Just shut up and comply with the rule. Hopefully, by now, most of you realize you are reading political satire. But that crucial fact - and the larger point of the satire - was lost on countless GILBERTS across the nation. After reading only two paragraphs of this letter, which was posted in its entirety on DrAdams.org, they began to fire off letters to the UNC-Wilmington administration demanding that I be fired. Had the GILBERTS taken the time to read this far they would have understood that a real letter of complaint was filed against me in January simply for a) mentioning my Christianity, b) offering very mild criticism of one assertion of Darwinism, and c) revealing a basic belief about the origins of human rights; namely, that they are endowed by a Creator. It is sad that a college student would lack the maturity needed to hear someone say “I’m an outspoken Christian professor” without having an emotional breakdown. It is also sad that he was arrogant enough to write a letter of complaint to my Marxist chairwoman. I am simply not intimidated by anti-Christian bigots. Nothing short of a bullet in the head will keep me from professing my Christian beliefs. And most anti-Christian bigots don’t own guns. It is also sad that the administration failed to reprimand the narrow-minded Marxist who expressed disappointment that the student’s letter would not result in a formal complaint. This is unmitigated bigotry, plain and simple. If I were not an adult, I would ague that it’s hate speech. Of course, while sad, none of this is too surprising. This is an administration that removed the word “Christmas” from the tree and “Good Friday” from the university calendar. They even once tried to force faculty and staff to remove Bible verses from their university email signatures. Nor is it surprising that GILBERTS express outrage at satire more often than Christians express outrage at real persecution. That is because most GILBERTS love their sexuality more than most Christians love Christ. And that’s the saddest thing of all. 16) Guideline For The Publication Of Liturgical Books [New Missal] USCCB.org http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/pubguidelines.pdf http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2277144/posts 2009 Prior to the Second Vatican Council the moderation of the liturgy, including the publication and supervision of liturgical books, was the responsibility of the Apostolic See and the local bishop. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium (December 4, 1963), extended this responsibility also to Conferences of Bishops for their respective territories, to the extent determined in church discipline and law (cf. canon 838 §3 of the Code of Canon Law). As a part of its responsibility, the Committee on Divine Worship, a standing committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has authorized the following guidelines for the use and publication of liturgical materials. The Committee, assisted by its Secretariat, wishes to cooperate as fully as possible with all publishers, editors, writers, and composers involved in the development, production and distribution of liturgical materials, from approved books to popular participation aids, in the hope of encouraging excellence in celebration. The Committee remains open to addressing issues that might develop as the Roman Missal reaches the final stages of publication. Introduction 1. 1. The role of the national episcopal conference and its episcopal liturgical commission (in this country the Committee on Divine Worship) has been defined in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (nos. 22, 36, 39-40, 44) and the Instruction Inter oecumenici, On the Orderly Carrying Out of the Constitution on the Liturgy (Consilium and the Sacred Congregation for Rites, September 26, 1964, nos. 44-45). The authority, exercised by the Apostolic See for Latin liturgical books and now by the episcopal conferences for the vernacular liturgical books, was further specified in the decree of the Congregation of Rites, January 27, 1966. (See also the decree of the Conference of Bishops of the United States, April 2, 1964, concerning the examination and control of liturgical translations.) Liturgiam authenticam, the Fifth Instruction on Vernacular Translations of the Roman Liturgy (issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on March 28, 2001), further specifies the role of the Conference of Bishops: As regards the publication of liturgical books translated into the vernacular which are the property of a given Conference of Bishops, the right of publication is reserved to those editors to whom the Conference of Bishops shall have given this right by contract, with due regard for the requirements both of civil law and juridical custom prevailing in each country for the publication of books. (no. 115) The Committee on Divine Worship, therefore, has the responsibility of regulating pastoral-liturgical actions under the authority of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. This includes the supervision of the publication of approved liturgical books, participation aids, and those prayerbooks which contain liturgical materials. Supervision of the publication of books wholly comprising devotional materials does not fall within the scope of the Committee on Divine Worship and rests with the local Ordinary of the place in which they are published (cf. canon 826 §3 of the Code of Canon Law). 1. 2. The purpose of this national episcopal responsibility – and of the present guidelines – is not only to assert authoritative control but to encourage, and collaborate in, the production and publication of the most effective and excellent liturgical books and other materials. The guidelines have been prepared so that all who participate in any form of liturgical publishing may be assured of the willingness of the Committee on Divine Worship to assist and cooperate. 1. 3. The statements of principles and regulations in these guidelines apply to all kinds of liturgical publications issued or distributed in the dioceses of the United States, that is, within the territory subject to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 1. 4. Special attention should be given to the high quality of books used for reading the liturgical texts to the people in the vernacular, so that even the book’s appearance may prompt greater reverence for the word of God and for sacred objects (see Liturgiam authenticam, no. 120, and the Instruction Inter oecumenici, no. 40e.). They should be clear in their arrangement and typography, worthy in appearance and quality of paper and binding, supplemented by such catechetical and other comments as will encourage effective and dignified celebration, and be faithful to the goals of the liturgical reform. In particular, from the approved liturgical books to the simplest participation aids, publications should provide the greatest possible diversity and options, as expected by the liturgical reform. No publication should limit, directly or indirectly, the breadth of choice open to the priest and other ministers, the leaders of song, parish and community worship committees, or others who participate in planning liturgical celebration. Similarly, no explanation or arrangement of text or rites should misrepresent or distort the approved ritual, as found in the vernacular typical editions approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and confirmed by the Apostolic See. 1. 5. In these guidelines the term "publisher" is applicable to any person or group, public or private, for-profit or not-for-profit, ecclesiastical, religious, or lay, engaged in the production of liturgical materials for distribution to others. "Publications" refer to such materials by whatever process they may be produced or reproduced, whether for sale or for distribution without charge. 1. 6. For typical vernacular editions, the recognitio granted by the Apostolic See is to be indicated in the printed editions together with the concordat cum originali signed by the chairman of the liturgical Commission of the Conference of Bishops, as well as the imprimatur undersigned by the President of the same Conference (Liturgiam authenticam, no. 81). 1. 7. The publication of liturgical texts iuxta typicam, that is reproductions of all or part of liturgical texts in other forms such as in participation aids, is governed by a separate canonical norm, canon 826 §2. The requisite attestation that a liturgical book is in conformity with the approved typical edition (in this case, the typical vernacular edition) is supplied by the Ordinary of the place where the liturgical book is published. 1. 8. In addition, it is the responsibility of the publisher to obtain the necessary permission or contract from the copyright holder of any liturgical or other text which is included in a publication. Such permission should be sought as soon as the material has been chosen and always prior to its publication. Any conditions or requirements established by copyright holders are in addition to these guidelines, including the payment of royalties or other fees, and have their own force. 1. 9. Publishers are reminded that the appropriate copyright notice is to be made, as specified by the copyright holder. In the case of texts prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), as in the case of the Roman Missal, the copyright notice reads: Copyright © (year or years of publication), International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc. All rights reserved. In the case of texts from the New American Bible or the Lectionary for Mass, the copyright notice reads: from the Lectionary for Mass: Excerpts from the Lectionary for Mass for Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America, second typical edition © 2001, 1998, 1997, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC. Used with permission. All rights reserved. No portion of this text may be reproduced by any means without permission in writing from the copyright owner. from the New American Bible: Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner. or: Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible with Revised New Testament © 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner. 1. 10. Ordinarily the authorization to publish or the directions described below apply to both first and subsequent printings, but in every case the Secretariat of Divine Worship should be informed of new printings so that necessary changes or corrections can be incorporated. 1. 11. Any inquiries concerning these guidelines and all other communications should be addressed to the Committee on Divine Worship through its Secretariat (3211 Fourth Street, NE, Washington, DC 20017). Any doubts concerning the application of the guidelines should be resolved in sufficient time before publication. 1. 12. Publishers are requested to place the Secretariat of Divine Worship on their mailing lists so that copies of all publications, releases, advertising and promotional material, etc. will be available to the Committee. Books containing liturgical texts fall into one of three categories: A. Approved Liturgical Books 1. 13. "Approved liturgical books" are complete or excerpted editions of the vernacular translations of the Latin editiones typicæ which have been duly approved for liturgical use in the dioceses of the United States of America by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. They are books or excerpts from books which are intended for use by the celebrant or ministers in the celebration of Mass, the sacraments, or other liturgical rites. 1. 14. The Committee on Divine Worship, in consultation with publishers, will determine whether a liturgical book will be published exclusively by a single publisher or will be made available to publishers non-exclusively. In the United States of America, the revised edition of the Roman Missal is available to publishers on a non-exclusive basis. Authorization must be obtained in the case of each book but will not be unreasonably withheld from any publisher who complies with the conditions and requirements of the Committee on Divine Worship. 1. 15. When the ICEL texts are available and their approbation for use in the United States is anticipated, the Committee on Divine Worship will inform publishers and invite them to apply for authorization to publish an approved edition. The projected contents, format, size, number of copies to be printed, estimated selling price, and date of publication should be submitted with the application. 1. 16. The Committee will provide authorized publishers with all necessary adaptations and directives upon approval of the liturgical texts by the episcopal conference and confirmation by the Apostolic See. 1. 17. No publisher may alter the approved text, prescribed arrangement, or required format in any way. The publisher is free to select typefaces, page and book design, and the like which are compatible with the purpose and use of the publication. Publishers are invited to propose rearrangements of texts, additions of supplementary material, graphic designs, etc.; however, these may be adopted only with permission of the Committee on Divine Worship. 1. 18. Publishers must submit for the examination of the Secretariat staff of the Committee on Divine Worship three copies of either the complete manuscript or the first galley proofs of the proposed publication, allowing six to eight weeks for review. After the incorporation of changes, corrections, and the like required by the Committee on Divine Worship, a further set of proofs is to be submitted. 1. 19. Final authorization to print will be given in written form only upon the submission of three copies of the final proof pages in which all changes have been incorporated. 1. 20. In the case of a complete edition of an approved liturgical book the Chairman of the Committee on Divine Worship will issue the publisher a formal written authorization to publish. 1. 21. The acknowledgment page of such publications shall include a mention of the approbation and confirmation of the liturgical book; the copyright page shall state: Published by authority of the Committee on Divine Worship, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops 1. 22. In consultation with all publishers authorized to publish an edition of a newly approved liturgical book, dates of publication and distribution will be set by the Committee on Divine Worship. 1. 23. Immediately upon printing and binding, and prior to distribution, five copies are to be sent to the Secretariat for its use, together with two copies for transmission to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. 1. 24. Royalties payable to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and to the Apostolic See through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have been treated separately in the USCCB policy on royalties. 1. 25. Copies of all promotional and advertising material related to approved liturgical books are to be submitted prior to printing and distribution to dealers, publications, subscribers, etc. 1. 26. See Appendix I: Editorial Requirements for Granting the Concordat cum originali, regarding requirements of format and other details of published liturgical books. B. Other Liturgical Publications 1. 27. The term, "other liturgical publications," has been adopted to cover editions of the contents of the above approved books in forms which are not primarily or directly intended for the use of the celebrant and ministers during the actual celebration or as "participation aids" for congregations. Study editions useful in preparation for rites, home or school editions, such as hand missals or other publications which incorporate an entire rite are included in this category of texts iuxta typicam. Because such publications are offered to the public as editions containing an entire rite, and because on occasion such books may be employed in place of approved liturgical books, publishers are expected to follow these guidelines. 1. 28. Publishers should provide the Committee on Divine Worship with complete information concerning such projected publications. This should include a definitive outline of the contents and the name of the local Ordinary of the place where the work is to be published. It is the local Ordinary who, in accord with canon 826 §2 of the Code of Canon Law, grants the imprimatur. 1. 29. The complete manuscript or first galley proofs should be submitted promptly to the Committee, which will communicate any corrections, observations, and the like. 1. 30. When the liturgical texts, upon examination, have been found to be in conformity with the typical edition, the Committee on Divine Worship will inform the publisher and the appropriate local Ordinary. Such publications may include a notice that the liturgical texts and rites have been approved and confirmed, but not that the publication itself has been authorized or approved by the Committee on Divine Worship. 1. 31. Since the publication of study editions, excerpted portions, and the like must not jeopardize the introduction or use of approved books, after consultation with the concerned publishers, dates of publication and distribution will be set by the Committee on Divine Worship. 1. 32. Five copies of such publications are to be sent to the Secretariat. C. Participation Materials 1. 33. Publications such as hymnals and popular participation aids which promote and facilitate participation of the people in the liturgy by providing the necessary texts and music to fulfill their active role are included in this third category of texts iuxta typicam. Participation materials of this kind are distinct from the approved liturgical books used by the ministers of the liturgy. Because of the impact of such materials upon liturgical celebration, publishers of participation aids are asked to observe the following guidelines. In addition, publishers of participation aids are to observe the special requirements noted in Appendix II: Guidelines for Publication of Participation Aids, also approved by the Committee on Divine Worship of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 1. 34. New liturgical texts, including future revisions of existing liturgical texts, will be supplied by the Committee on Divine Worship to all interested publishers of participation aids in such a way and time so as not to jeopardize the introduction and use of the approved liturgical book. 1. 35. At times the Committee on Divine Worship will provide not only the approved liturgical texts but also a suggested format for popular publications. The latter may include such elements as subheads, running directions or commentary, suggested introductory material, indications of needed supplementary material such as song texts, etc. However, it is most desirable that such supplementary material be prepared by editors and publishers themselves. 1. 36. The reformed liturgy offers a variety of options, encourages ministerial creativity, and at times admits a diversity of forms. The participation aid should be so designed as not to establish, once and for all, a single or rigid pattern of liturgical celebration. 1. 37. The arrangement or selection of liturgical texts must not result in the suppression of alternatives and options for the congregation (or for the celebrant and other ministers, as applicable). When a difficulty arises, namely, when the number of options is large, the selection of the minimal options to be included will be made by the Committee on Divine Worship, which should be consulted beforehand. The publisher does not have the authority to make unilateral selection of liturgical texts among the options available. 1. 38. Musical settings should be provided within participation aids. If the aid is to be used over an extended period or by various groups, the music should be arranged in such a way as not to limit other suitable musical selections. 1. 39. Publishers of popular publications are asked to submit to the Committee on Divine Worship completed manuscripts or at least page proofs of all new publications, together with the name of the ecclesiastical authority from which permission to publish will be sought. These proofs or manuscripts are in addition to those required by copyright holders whose requirements must also be met by publishers. 1. 40. The Committee on Divine Worship will return the manuscripts or proofs to the publishers with a report of (a) corrections to be made because of errors in the texts and/or rites, and (b) indications of corrections needed because of inadequacies, unsatisfactory commentary, or the like. Copies of the report will be sent to the appropriate ecclesiastical authority and the copyright holders of texts. 1. 41. Only in the case of error or violation of the approved form of texts or rites will ICEL or other proprietors of copyrighted texts be asked by the Committee on Divine Worship to withhold license to publish. In all other cases the determination will continue to be made by the local ecclesiastical authority. 1. 42. Publishers are reminded of the need of copyright permissions for the publication of participation aids. This refers not only to the English translation of the various texts but also to all musical compositions and settings. 1. 43. The local Ordinary, in accord with canon 826 §2 of the Code of Canon Law, grants the imprimatur. 1. 44. See Appendix II: Guidelines for the Publication of Participation Aids, regarding specific requirements for formatting, texts, and other details. Most Reverend Arthur J. Serratelli Bishop of Paterson Chairman, Committee on Divine Worship Rev. Msgr. Anthony F. Sherman Executive Director, Secretariat of Divine Worship April 23, 2009 Appendix I: Editorial Requirements for Granting the Concordat cum originali "The books from which the liturgical texts are recited in the vernacular with or on behalf of the people should be marked by such a dignity that the exterior appearance of the book itself will lead the faithful to a greater reverence for the word of God and for sacred realities" (Liturgiam authenticam, no. 120). In fulfillment of its obligation to ensure that each published edition of the Roman Missal is worthy of its role in the sacred liturgy, the Committee on Divine Worship, through its Secretariat, requires that certain conditions be met before approval is given for publication. Each of these requirements is set forth in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the scriptural text and in order that each edition might reflect the dignity of the word of God. 1. 1. The full and integral typical text (including all front matter) must be included in each edition. 1. 2. Sense lines, as exemplified by the typical edition, must be observed in all cases. 1. 3. When eucological texts (prayers) are printed, page breaks must allow each oration to be proclaimed in full, without page turns, to the extent this is possible. 1. 4. The format as it appears in the typical edition is to be followed. Any exception is to be given prior approval by the Secretariat of Divine Worship. 1. 5. Rubrics and editorial materials are to be printed in appropriate colors designating them as explanatory material. Texts intended for proclamation must be printed in a color, font and size suitable for proclamation. Samples of such text should be submitted to the Secretariat at an early stage in the development of the revised edition of the Roman Missal. 1. 6. The paper and binding of each edition of the Roman Missal must be of an appropriate quality and durability. Traditional stitching or other means of binding should be used that guarantee that the spine will not split or drop pages. "Ideally, the paper of a ritual book designed for cathedral use should be at least 70 lb. stock and resistant to wrinkling and curling. In addition, the weight of each page, as it is turned, should allow it to draw naturally to the left side of the center gutter to help complete turning with little effort. Ink is best which resists fading and smearing, should it come into contact with fingered or with materials used in certain rites such as blessed oils, water, wine, lemon juice, bread and the like. Inks whose color fades or changes when routinely exposed to bright light are also to be avoided. It is important for immediate readability that red ink result in vivid though not garish red print rather than shades or orange or brown" (Ratio Translationis for the English Language, Annexe: Physical Elements of Style, no. 13). 1. 7. "Ribbons are best added to a liturgical book by being sewn to the inside binding on the spine; this will help to secure them from being otherwise loosened by the frequent pulling needed to place them correctly." Tabs can help celebrants locate the most frequently used texts. Such tabs should be used on pages "which mark the principal parts of the Order of Mass, 1. especially Eucharistic Prayers I-IV, the beginning of Mass, the Creed, the prayers found in the Preparation of the Gifts, the Our Father and the sections relating to the Blessing." Multiplying the tabs beyond these essentials will reduce their effectiveness and add to the cost of publication (Ratio Translationis for the English Language, Annexe: Physical Elements of Style, no. 15). 1. 8. "The placement of art opposite the title pages of liturgical books, notably at the beginning of the Roman Canon, is a long established and commendable practice. To be avoided is the overuse of decorative elements so that a liturgical book becomes weighed down with graphics that distract or clutter the page" (Ratio Translationis for the English Language, Annexe: Physical Elements of Style, no. 11). 1. 9. Final judgments regarding suitability of a manuscript for approval by the Committee on Divine Worship rest with the USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship. 1. 10. Three copies of each manuscript for which a publisher seeks the concordat must be submitted to the USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship at least six weeks prior to the date the manuscript is needed by the publisher for printing. Appendix II: Guidelines for the Publication of Participation Aids In fulfillment of its responsibility to oversee the publication of the liturgical books and in order to foster the active participation of all the faithful in liturgical celebrations, the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship first issued guidelines for the publication of participation aids in May 1975. They were revised in 1998, and in light of the publication of the third edition of the Roman Missal, the Committee on Divine Worship approved the following revision of these guidelines in April 2009. The guidelines – which take effect with the implementation of the third edition of the Roman Missal – will be used by the Secretariat of Divine Worship as a guide in granting approval for the publication of all participation aids. Introduction The USCCB Committee on Divine Worship has been charged with the responsibility of overseeing the publication of the liturgical books which describe and guide the reformed rites which were developed in the years since the Second Vatican Council. Likewise, the Committee has sought ways to foster the effective implementation of this reform in the fulfillment of its responsibility to regulate pastoral-liturgical action in the dioceses of the United States of America. It is in the light of this responsibility that these guidelines have been developed for publishers of popular participation materials. The guidelines were first issued in May 1975 and subsequently revised on several occasions, most recently in April 2009. The purpose is not to suppress initiative on the part of publishers, but to encourage the publication of effective participation aids and to foster that "full, conscious and active participation which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 14). Approval of the Secretariat for Divine Worship Before copyrights will be released by USCCB, CCD, or ICEL for participation aids, the approval of the USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship is required. The Secretariat acts on behalf of the Committee on Divine Worship in assuring conformity with these guidelines. Previous publishers of participation aids should submit a copy of the manuscript from a forthcoming edition of their publication to the Secretariat of Divine Worship for its review and approval. Once a letter of approval has been received, such approval may be presumed for forthcoming editions of the same publication, provided that no changes concerning these guidelines have been made. A single subscription to each participation aid should be sent to the Secretariat of Divine Worship. Order of Mass In General Questions of format in presenting the Order of Mass may differ with different publications. However, an effort should always be made to accurately present the prayers, responses, acclamations, and musical selections in such a way as to foster the participation of the entire assembly. 1. Publishers may use only those liturgical books which have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and confirmed by the Apostolic See for use in the dioceses of the United States of America. 2. While it is not necessary for participation aids to include presidential prayers or biblical readings, when such texts are printed, all legitimate options must be included. 3. Any commentary should be clearly set apart from the liturgical texts and rubrics by size and typeface. 4. The terminology given in the liturgical books is to be followed. Note that the word "presider" is not to be used as it is not used in the Roman Missal. 5. Indications of postures should be based upon the norms contained in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), numbers 42-43. Introductory Rites Entrance Chant Greeting All three greetings must be printed, and no selection may be made. Rite of Blessing and Sprinkling of Holy Water If the prayer of blessing is printed, all options must be given (A, B and C during the Easter season, or A and B for the rest of the year). If the people’s part is printed, it is sufficient to print one of the antiphons with musical notation or another appropriate song. Penitential Act If the introduction is printed, all options must be given (A, B and C). There should be some indication that other words of introduction may be used. 1. All three forms of the Act of Penitence must be printed (A, B and C). For Rite C, the three responses (Lord, have mercy, Christ, have mercy, Lord, have mercy) may be printed without the variable tropes since the Roman Missal provides so many examples. Kyrie When the Kyrie is printed, both English and Greek forms should be provided, as in the Roman Missal. Gloria The typical text is to be printed in the approved sense line format. A rubric may be added to indicate the days on which the Gloria is used. Collect Prayer If the Collect is to be included, it must be printed in full, in the typical sense line format. If two options are given for the Collect, both must be included. 1. A rubric should be included which indicates that the people respond "Amen" to the prayer. However, if the prayer is printed, the simple "Amen" is sufficient. Liturgy of the Word First Reading, Second Reading, Gospel By means of the word of God proclaimed at Mass, the Holy Spirit "makes what we hear outwardly have its effect inwardly" (Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass [Introduction], no. 9). This, however, can only take place when the readings are proclaimed in "[a] speaking style on the part of the readers that is audible, clear, and intelligent" (Introduction, no. 14), and when sufficient amplification is provided (Introduction, no. 34). It is clearly preferable that the word of God be clearly heard by all who participate in the liturgy, for "[i]n the hearing of God’s word the Church is built up and grows" (Introduction, no. 7). 1. While it is not a requirement, some participation aids include the texts of readings and presidential prayers. 2. The official Liturgical Calendar for the Dioceses of the United States of America, published each year by the Secretariat of Divine Worship, is to be used in choosing the readings for each day. 3. When several options exist for the readings (i.e., Christmas, the vigil of Pentecost, etc.), no preference may be indicated unless such a preference is printed in the Lectionary for Mass. When more than two options are given for a reading, only one reading must be printed in full. All other optional readings should be listed by their biblical references and tituli. 4. Optional shorter and longer forms of readings must be printed in the order given in the Lectionary for Mass. The shorter form of the reading may be bracketed within the longer form. 5. The arrangement of readings in the typical sense lines provided in the Lectionary for Mass is optional. When the sense lines of the Lectionary are not observed, the sense lines of the New American Bible must be followed. Responsorial Psalm The responsorial psalm is to be printed, preferably with musical notation for the response. In addition, it is recommended that a seasonal antiphon be provided (cf. Lectionary for Mass, no. 173). 1. While it is sufficient to print only the refrain of the responsorial psalm, the verses may also be printed. 2. When there are various options in the Lectionary (e.g., in the Commons where responsorial psalms are grouped together rather than related to specific first readings), a selection may be made of at least one responsorial psalm, but there must be an indication that there are other options. 3. The sense lines of the approved text as it appears in the Lectionary for Mass are to be followed. Sequence On the days when the Sequence is provided in the Lectionary for Mass, it should be included in the same way other texts of the Lectionary are included, along with a rubric indicating whether the Sequence is prescribed or optional, as indicated in the Lectionary. Gospel Acclamation The Alleluia or Gospel Acclamation is to be printed, preferably with musical notation for the response. 1. This acclamation belongs to the Gospel reading and is not a response to the preceding readings. This differentiation should be clearly indicated by the format. 2. The musical settings for this acclamation should be varied for the sake of the local community. A rubric should be included stating that, if the Alleluia or the Lenten Gospel acclamation cannot be sung, it is to be omitted. Profession of Faith The typical text of the Nicene Creed is to be printed in the approved sense line format. In addition to the Nicene Creed, the typical text of the Apostles’ Creed may be printed as well; if it is printed, it too is to be printed in the approved sense line format and a rubric should be added to indicate that it may be used instead of the Nicene Creed, "especially during Lent and Easter time" (Ordo Missæ, no. 19). Universal Prayer (Prayer of the Faithful) In the interest of encouraging the local composition of the intercessions of the Universal Prayer, none of the parts of this prayer (introduction, intercessions, concluding prayer) may be printed, even as examples. At least the most common of the responses ("Lord, hear our prayer") should be printed; others may be indicated, and it is appropriate to give musical notation for these. Liturgy of the Eucharist Presentation of the Gifts and Preparation of the Altar The prayers to be said inaudibly by the priest should not be printed. Prayer over the Offerings If the Prayer over the Offerings is to be included, all options (if provided) must be printed in full, in the typical sense line format. A rubric should be included which indicates that the people respond "Amen" to the prayer. However, if the prayer is printed, the simple "Amen" is sufficient. Eucharistic Prayer No preference should be indicated among the four principal Eucharistic Prayers. If one is printed, all must be included. The prefaces of Eucharistic Prayers II and IV must appear as parts of the respective prayers. 1. It should be clear from the typographical arrangement that the preface is an integral part of the Eucharistic Prayer, whether or not the texts are printed. 2. If the prefaces are given, no selection may be made among the prefaces for Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter, and any strictly proper preface or prefaces (e.g., for a specific Sunday or feast day) must be included. In Ordinary Time, it is sufficient to give three Sunday and three weekday prefaces; the selections should be varied. The possibility of other options should be clearly indicated. 3. The Sanctus, the acclamation of the Mystery of Faith, and Amen are to be printed with musical notation. No preference should be indicated among the acclamations of the Mystery of Faith. No other acclamations within the Eucharistic Prayers may be printed. 4. The Eucharistic Prayers for Masses of Reconciliation may be printed in place after the four principal Eucharistic Prayers. If one of these texts is printed, however, both must be given. The prefaces must appear as parts of the respective prayers. 5. A rubric is to be included indicating that on some occasions the priest may use the authorized Eucharistic Prayers for Masses for Various Needs and Intentions. Communion Rite 1. If the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer is printed, all options must be given. It is appropriate to give musical notation for the prayer and the doxology which follows the embolism. 2. The prayers said inaudibly by the priest are not to be printed. 3. It should be made clear from the typographical arrangement that the Agnus Dei accompanies the breaking of the bread and should be repeated until the breaking of the bread is finished. Musical settings for the Agnus Dei should be provided. 4. The period after communion should not be designated "thanksgiving," nor should thanksgiving or litany prayers be included. It may be noted, however, that a "psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the entire congregation" (See GIRM, no. 88). Prayer after Communion If the Prayer after Communion is to be included, all options (if provided) must be printed in full, in the typical sense line format. A rubric should be included which indicates that the people respond "Amen" to the prayer. However, if the prayer is printed, the simple "Amen" is sufficient. Concluding Rite 1. The simple form of the blessing may be printed, as in the Roman Missal. 2. The solemn blessing or prayer over the people may be printed according to the selection made in the Missal for the principal seasons, but there should be an indication that other texts may be chosen. 3. No preference among the optional texts for the solemn blessing or prayer over the people for the Sundays in Ordinary Time may be made, but there should be an indication that there are various options. 4. In all cases the responses of the people should be indicated. 5. No preference should be indicated among the options for the dismissal. Other Questions Guidelines for Receiving Communion The following Guidelines for Receiving Communion must be included in a prominent place in all participation aids in the same type used for the responses of the assembly: For Catholics As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all. For Other Christians We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3). For Those Not Receiving Communion All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another. For Non-Christians We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family. © 1996, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Other Mass Texts If votive Masses, Masses for Various Needs and Intentions, etc., are printed, the Roman Missal is to be followed, with the usual indication of options. If a ritual Mass is printed, one set of texts may be selected, with the usual indication of options. The appropriate ritual book is to be followed. Rite of Penance Sacramental celebrations of the reconciliation of several penitents with individual confession and absolution (Rite II) must be taken from chapters 2 and 4, and Appendix II of the Rite of Penance. Settings for such celebrations require the approval of the Secretariat of Divine Worship prior to their publication in a participation aid. Eucharistic Adoration The most recent edition of the ritual Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass must be followed in any directions or rubrics. 1. An introductory note should state that, since eucharistic exposition may not be held merely to give the eucharistic blessing, Benediction must always be preceded by a suitable period for reading of the word of God, song, prayers, and sufficient time for silent prayer. 2. Suitable songs, hymns, or psalms should be provided for the opening of any liturgy of Eucharistic Adoration. 3. During the period of adoration, readings from Scripture should be indicated together with appropriate prayers and songs. 4. A hymn or other eucharistic song or songs should be given to immediately precede Benediction. A rubric should mention the prayer of the priest/deacon and the eucharistic blessing. If the prayer of the priest/deacon is printed, there should be the usual indication of the options contained in the Roman Ritual. 5. A song or acclamation may be printed for use during reposition. The Divine Praises may also be used. A rubric should indicate that other acclamations or songs may be used. Other Liturgical Celebrations Care should be taken to follow the Roman Missal regarding the special rites (i.e., the blessing of candles on the feast of the Presentation of the Lord, the blessing and distribution of ashes on Ash Wednesday, etc.) and rubrics (i.e., the requirement to genuflect at the words "and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man" of the Nicene Creed on Christmas and the Annunciation) which mark particular liturgical celebrations. 1. If provision is made for Sunday celebrations in the absence of a priest, the ritual book Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest should be followed, with the usual indication of options. 2. If any texts of the Liturgy of the Hours are printed, both Morning and Evening Prayer should be included. A selection of hymnody and psalmody for the various hours may be made, but always with an indication that other texts may be chosen. The headings given in the Ordinary of the Liturgy of the Hours are to be followed. When psalm prayers are given, they should be chosen from among those given in the Liturgy of the Hours. 3. Nonsacramental penitential celebrations should follow the structure of a Liturgy of the Word, as in the Rite of Penance. It should be clearly indicated that such celebrations are not to be used in place of the Sacrament of Penance. 4. If other celebrations (for example, prayer services with special themes, etc.) are added, both typographical arrangement and explicit rubrics should indicate that these are not official texts or rites. 5. An original setting should not be printed if an approved rite already exists (i.e., Order of Crowning an Image of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Proclamation of the Birth of Christ, etc.). When such rites are printed, the approved text should be followed, with the usual provision for options. 6. Devotional or personal prayers may be printed in participation aids. When a prayer exists in several versions, preference should be given to the versions printed in the Manual of Indulgences and Catholic Household Blessings and Prayers, revised edition. Participation Aids in Other Languages By decree of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, April 2, 1964, languages other than English may be used in the celebration of the liturgy in translations approved by other Conferences of Bishops and confirmed by the Apostolic See. The above guidelines apply equally to the publication of participation aids in other languages for use in the dioceses of the United States of America. Publishers should consult the Secretariat of Divine Worship concerning various approved liturgical translations in other languages. Regarding the use of Spanish, until such time as Spanish translations of the Roman Missal and Lectionary for Mass are adopted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and confirmed by the Apostolic See for use in the dioceses of the United States, the translation as found in the Misal Romano and Leccionario for the dioceses of Mexico shall be used in the celebration of the liturgy and the publication of participation aids in Spanish. "All Things Political" articles 1) Dear David Letterman Townhall.com http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/06/12/dear_david_letterman http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2270231/posts June 12, 2009 Michelle Malkin Will you teach your son to talk about women and girls the way you talk about Sarah Palin and her daughters? You called the married 45-year-old mother, grandmother and Alaska governor a "slutty flight attendant" on your national TV talk show because she happens to be a tall, beautiful and dynamic public figure who doesn't look, walk or talk the way you think she should. You joked on national television about Palin's teenage daughter "getting knocked up" by professional baseball player Alex Rodriguez or solicited by the prostitute-addicted former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer because it's acceptable in your social and professional circles to sneer at the children of politicians you despise. You admitted that your attacks on Palin's family were in "poor taste," but cackled while acknowledging your sophomoric judgment. You expressed moral indignation at being misconstrued, yet you purposely omitted the name of the daughter you were mocking. Fourteen-year-old Willow Palin was the daughter who accompanied Gov. Palin on her trip this week, not 18-year-old Bristol Palin, whom you now claim was the target of your feckless smear -- a smear you still insist is perfectly defensible. Look at yourself, Dave. Look at how lame your excuse-making was on your Wednesday night show: "These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl. I mean, look at my record. It has never happened. I don't think it's funny. I would never think it was funny. I wouldn't put it in a joke..." Tell us, great comic genius, how tacking on four years to the target daughter makes it funny? We unenlightened dim bulbs who live outside of Manhattan's boundaries don't get the joke. Will you be able to explain it to your son? Face it: David Letterman, late-night entertainer turned partisan hack and hit man, has a deranged obsession with Palin and her family that has crossed into rank bigotry and hatred. If the CBS network cares about basic standards of decency on public airwaves and if it cares at all about bolstering its shrinking audience, the network honchos will get Letterman a therapist pronto. Over the past year, Letterman has displayed his sexist, elitist stripes in jibe after jibe aimed at Palin. Taken cumulatively, Letterman's mockery is about much more than expressing contempt for the popular GOP governor. It's a handy device to deride a broad class of working-class and middle-class women he holds in contempt: "You know, she reminds me, she looks like the flight attendant who won't give you a second can of Pepsi. No, you've had enough. We're landing. Looks like the waitress at the coffee shop who draws a little smiley face on your check. Have a nice day." "She looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway. She looks like the nurse who weighs you and then makes you sit alone in your underwear for 20 minutes. She looks like the Olive Garden hostess who says, 'I'm sorry, your table isn't ready yet.' She looks like the infomercial lady who says she made $64,000 a month flipping condos." "She looks like the lady at the bakery who yells out '44! 45!' She looks like a real estate agent whose picture you see on the bus stop bench. That's who she looks like. She looks like the lady who has a chain of cupcake stores." In November 2008, Letterman told tanking CBS News anchor Katie Couric that he was "aroused" by Palin. In March 2009, Letterman attacked Bristol and snickered about her being "knocked up" again. Letterman reminds me of the lecher at the school bus stop. Or the aging creep lurking in the dirty magazine section at the 7-Eleven. Attention, CBS: Get him help now. 2) Hovering On High: Obama Surveys The World Townhallcom http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/06/12/hovering_on_high_obama_surveys_the_world Free Republic (excerpted) Posting June 12, 2009 Charles Krauthammer When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been "acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating" between America and the world. Now that Obama has returned from his "Muslim world" pilgrimage, even the left agrees. "Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world. He's sort of God," Newsweek's Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews, reflecting on Obama's lofty perception of himself as the great transcender. Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see. Traveling the world, he brings the gospel of understanding and godly forbearance. We have all sinned against each other. We must now look beyond that and walk together to the sunny uplands of comity and understanding. He shall guide you. Thus: (A) He told Iran that, on the one hand, America once helped overthrow an Iranian government, while on the other hand "Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians." (Played a role?!) We have both sinned; let us bury the past and begin anew. (B) On religious tolerance, he gently referenced the Christians of Lebanon and Egypt, then lamented that the "divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence" (note the use of the passive voice). He then criticized (in the active voice) Western religious intolerance for regulating the wearing of the hijab -- after citing America for making it difficult for Muslims to give to charity. (C) Obama offered Muslims a careful admonition about women's rights, noting how denying women education impoverishes a country -- balanced, of course, with "meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life." Well, yes. On the one hand, there certainly is some American university where the women's softball team has received insufficient Title IX funds -- while, on the other hand, Saudi women showing ankle are beaten in the street, Afghan school girls have acid thrown in their faces, and Iranian women are publicly stoned to death for adultery. (Gays, as well -- but then again we have Prop 8.) We all have our shortcomings, our national foibles. Who's to judge? That's the problem with Obama's transcultural evenhandedness. It gives the veneer of professorial sophistication to the most simple-minded observation: Of course there are rights and wrongs in all human affairs. Our species is a fallen one. But that doesn't mean that these rights and wrongs are of equal weight. A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Teheran (and its surrogates) that our own State Department calls the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." True, France prohibits the wearing of the hijab in certain public places, in part to allow the force of law to protect Muslim women who might be coerced into wearing it by neighborhood fundamentalist gangs. But it borders on the obscene to compare this mild preference for secularization (seen in Muslim Turkey as well) to the violence that has been visited upon Copts, Maronites, Baha'i, Druze and other minorities in Muslim lands, and to the unspeakable cruelties perpetrated by Shiites and Sunnis upon each other. Even on freedom of religion, Obama could not resist the compulsion to find fault with his own country: "For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation" -- disgracefully giving the impression to a foreign audience not versed in our laws that there is active discrimination against Muslims, when the only restriction, applied to all donors regardless of religion, is on funding charities that serve as fronts for terror. Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He's showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect. Distorting history is not truth-telling, but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership, but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country. 3) Listening, GOP? 40% Of Americans Call Themselves Conservatives RushLimbaugh.com http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2272460/posts?page=4#4 June 15, 2009 Rush Limbaugh RUSH: Gallup poll, remember last week the Drive-Bys went all nuts with the USA Today/Gallup show that showed only 13% of the Republicans thought I spoke for them and then Cheney was at ten and they tried to paint this picture of the Republicans in the wilderness. Well, the Gallup people are out with another poll today, and it's very, very cool. Conservatives are the single largest ideology group in America. Forty percent of Americans call themselves conservative. The number of moderates is 35%. Liberals are 21% and 22% of Democrats call themselves conservative. This is why the left is afraid of Sarah Palin, folks, this is why they're trying to destroy her. Nobody else on the Republican side excites the Republican base like she does. I don't mean to insult anybody out there. Some great people on our side, but this ought to have specific impact here on our conservative media which is wandering off the reservation continually saying we gotta get rid of Reagan. If I were Dick Cheney I would think about suing Leon Panetta for defamation. Panetta says it's almost as if former Vice President Cheney would like to see another attack on the United States. That's patently absurd. RUSH: You know, back to that poll, the Gallup poll. Conservatives are the single largest ideological group in the country. Liberals are 21% and independents are 35%. If I were running the Republican Party, you know what it would tell me? And if I were in the conservative media, and if I really wanted to win the next series of elections, as Randall Hoven here of the American Thinker says, "Here is how you do it: get 40% of the vote by being genuinely conservative, without apology," and that's where you get your (quote, unquote) "Reagan Democrats." Just be pedal-to-the-metal conservative and don't apologize for it. "Then go after one third of the 'moderates' (thus getting another 12% of the vote, for a 52% majority) by pushing responsibility, competence and integrity. "Heck, maybe you'll get half the moderates, for a total of 58%, almost what Reagan got in 1984." Forty percent of the people of this country identify themselves as "conservative." Twenty-one percent identify themselves as liberal. This is why I closed the program on Friday telling you I still have faith. I still have faith in the people of this country -- and if you look at the campaign of 2008, the 40% of the American people who were conservative had nobody to vote for! And if the Republican Party keeps up, they're not going to offer anybody to vote for. And that's why the left is so scared to death of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin excites this 40% of Americans that are conservatives. Of course, the blue-blood, country club, Rockefeller Republicans and the media and the Democrats make fun of her and say that she's a dunce and she doesn't have any experience, she's uninformed and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But all you have to do... If you want to know, the left will tell you everything you want to know, if you listen to them. The far left, the left, the Democrat Party will tell you everything you want to know. And I just need to ask you one question. Of all the potential Republican presidential candidates that people could name for 2012, which one sends the Democrat Party, the media, the Comedian Community, and everybody else into an absolute insane tizzy? It is Sarah Palin. Why? Because they're scared. And why are they scared? They're afraid of her. They're afraid of that 20,000 people she can draw anywhere, any time, when she shows up to make an appearance. They're afraid of her because she can win. They're afraid of her because she could beat Barack Obama. That's why they trash her. That's why they're trying to destroy her. It's not because she embarrasses them. It's because she frightens them. Listen to the left, listen to the media if you want to find out what they think 'cause they'll tell you every time. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Now, back to this poll for just a second, the Gallup poll, 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservatives. Our buddies at Power Line today right after eight o'clock posted a post on their blog called, "Conservatives in the Wilderness -- The lead essay in the current issue of the Claremont Review of Books is William Voegeli's 'The wilderness years begin.' Does American conservatism need to reinvent itself for a new age? Voegeli addresses the diagnoses of the decline of American conservatism, and various prescriptions for its recovery. In the second-to-last paragraph (it's a long essay) rendering the case for the conservative opposition to the progressive liberal project." And this, folks, is a great way to express and define liberalism for people. Listen to this: "The danger liberalism poses to the American experiment comes from its disposition to deplete rather than replenish the capital required for self-government. If I might add something to this, "The danger liberalism poses to the American experiment comes from its disposition to deplete rather than replenish the capital" necessary for economic growth, and that's precisely what's happening now. People's retirements are gone. I've gotta story about that in the stack today. Economic expectations are plundered because more and more of the private sector has been taken over or completed by Barack Obama and transferred to him and his czars to rule in an unconstitutional manner from the White House, including the Census and other things. "The danger liberalism poses to the American experiment," and forget that "experiment." It's the danger liberalism proposes to America. I think America, as an "experiment," has succeeded. America is now in the process, our private sector, being destroyed by President Obama. "The danger liberalism poses to the American experiment comes from its disposition to deplete rather than replenish the [money] required for [economic growth]. Entitlement programs overextend not only financial but political capital. They proffer new 'rights,' goad people to demand and expand those rights aggressively," which is exactly what the left has done. New "rights," new entitlements, health care, read it that way and other things. People demand those things and expand on their demands. They "disdain truth in advertising about the nature or scope of the new debts and obligations those rights will engender. The experiment in self-government requires the cultivation, against the grain of a democratic age, of the virtues of self-reliance, patience, sacrifice, and restraint. The people who have this moral and social capital understand and accept that there 'will be many long periods when you put more into your institutions than you get out,' according to David Brooks. "Instead, liberalism promotes snarling but unrugged individualism, combining an absolute right 'to the lifestyle of one's choice (regardless of the social cost) with an equally fundamental right to be supported at state expense,' as the Manhattan Institute's Fred Siegel once described it," and isn't that where we are with the American left? People think they have an inherent right to live however they want with the government paying for it. They have an equally fundamental right to be supported at state expense because that's what they think America is because the Democrat Party and the American left have been working on them for years in this way. "Finally, the capital bestowed by vigilance against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is squandered," read the defense budget, "when liberals insist on approaching street gangs, illegal immigrants, and terrorist regimes in the hopeful belief that, to quote the political scientist Joseph Cropsey, 'trust edifies and absolute trust edifies absolutely.'" That's just the second-to-last paragraph of William Voegeli's, The Wilderness Years Begin. Conservatives are not in the wilderness. The Republican Party is in the wilderness. Conservatives are fine and dandy. Conservatives know exactly what they are. Well, some Washington conservatives don't. Some media conservatives have gotten all confused and are off the reservation saying some of the most ridiculous things, But as far as the people outside the Beltway, the American conservative population, wham bam! We don't need to reinvent it 'cause it's timeless. Conservatism's foundation is freedom. Freedom will never go out of style. And you get people saying, still to this day, "We gotta forget Reagan and we gotta do..." Nobody is holding onto Reagan as a cult. What people are holding onto is there was an application of conservatism and look at what it got. Fifty-eight percent of the vote! It wasn't just the positions on taxes and communism and defense. It was the philosophy that produced those possessions. And that philosophy exists the same then as it does today and is just as applicable to issues today as it was then, even though the issues may be different. There doesn't need to be any realignment, redefinition, or anything of the sort. So this ought to hearten people. Republicans aren't going to like this. Some of the conservative intelligentsia media aren't going to like it and they're going to say people like me are misrepresenting the poll and misreading it, but I'm not. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Well, it will depend on who the candidates are but, look, let me remind you again Gallup poll out today, 40% -- and this is the largest percentile -- 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives. Twenty-one percent identify themselves as liberal. About 22% of that 40% is Democrat conservatives. So all the Republican Party has to do is run a full-bore conservative campaign and they'll pick up that 40%. That's why I said if the Republicans had nominated a conservative in 2008, Obama could have been beaten. Don't listen to people on our side who rip Sarah Palin. Don't listen to Republicans who rip Sarah Palin. Listen to Democrats. Listen to liberals. They'll tell you who they're afraid of. They tell you who they're afraid of by trying to destroy them. If they thought Sarah Palin was the easiest slam-dunk defeat they could ever engineer, they would be talking her up, they're scared to death. She can draw 20,000 people, as it was said early today by somebody, reading a cookbook. There's no other Republican candidate that enthused and energized the crowd that way. So just listen to the left. Just listen to the Democrats. Forty percent of the people identify themselves as conservative. Now, people say, "If that's the case how did Obama win?" I can give you a number of factors -- Bush fatigue. There was no conservative on the ballot to vote for. And the whole notion, "Change parties, let's just change, it's been eight years. Everybody hates the Republicans. Let's just change parties." A lot of conservatives stayed home. But 60 million people did not vote for Obama. Fifty-eight, 60 million people did not vote. We gotta get rid of Reagan, they say. Reagan got 58% of the vote in 1984, 58%. What was Reagan? He was a conservative. I get blue in the face talking about this stuff, it's so simple, it really is so simple. And the people who think they're the smartest people in the room have to get in there and start monkeying around with something that's not complicated to try to prove how smart they are or whatever else they're trying to establish when the blueprint's there and the base, it's ready to go, with the right candidates. So if you are a Republican, if you're thinking of running, I don't care what part of the country you live in, either, by the way, forget this northeast garbage, might have to exempt Massachusetts, but I doubt it, maybe Maine. If you're Republican and you want to win and you want to run for office in 2010, be conservative and don't make any excuses for it! And don't apologize for it. Just run as a conservative on the principles. Apply the principles to today's issues, and it ain't going to be hard because it's the easiest thing in the world to contrast conservatism with socialism. And that's what Barack Obama and the Democrat Party is. 4) Facts On The Health Care Debate -- And The Animal Care Comparison RushLimbaugh.com http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2272460/posts?page=8#8 June 15, 2009 Rush Limbaugh RUSH: Let's get to health care here before Obama's speech starts, scheduled to start in five minutes and I want you to have some information before this speech begins. Back in 1993, when the Clintons attempted Hillary Care, one-seventh of the US economy was health care. It's now one-fifth and they're trying to take it over and they're trying to nationalize it. Even Stan Greenberg, the pollster who works with Clinton and Paul Begala, is out today saying this thing, it could fail, and it could fail easily because there's no way you can sign up more people and cut costs. There's just no way it can be done. Cutting costs is absurd. The Democrats are talking about $600 billion in new tax increases. But George Will yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos had some profound insights and statistics during the roundtable discussion. He said, in the president's words, it'll keep 'em honest. The public option will keep 'em honest. "To try to preserve the government as a lagoon of honesty, you can argue, refuted by anybody who reads any budget of any administration." So the Obama administration says the public option will keep the private sector honest. It's the public sector that's dishonest. It's the public sector that's corrupted. Number two. George Will says this. "Obama says it will play by the same rules as the private insurers, and therefore, won't drive them out of business." Now, if you play by the same rules, what's the point? If you're going to have a public option that plays by the same rules as the private sector, then what's the point of having a public option? In real terms, there is no reason for it. If what you're saying is it's not going to be any better -- and we all know it can't be -- then why do it? "Third, it's necessary to give what Secretary Sebelius said a choice to the consumers. There are 1,300 entities offering healthcare plans in this country. Another one--" i.e., the government "-- isn't going to change that." Thirteen hundred entities offering health care plans in the country today and Sebelius says that Obama needs to have a public option to give consumers a choice. They've got choices out the wazoo. "Taking this a step further, many of these 1,300 entities will likely cease to exist if government gets involved." So the end result is that there will be far fewer options for people. The idea is to wipe out the private sector with the public option, that's its intent. George Will again: "Finally, there's the argument that the American people are not smart enough to handle something as complicated as healthcare and have a competitive market. They've done rather well in computers." But you see, this gets to the common thing I continually attempt to remind everybody of, and that is the government liberals, Democrats look at everybody with contempt. None of us are smart enough to survive without them paving the road, guiding the way, and steering us. George Will was not done, though. He is talking to Donna Brazile. He said, "You talk about the 46, 47 million uninsured. Fourteen million of them are already eligible for other government programs and haven't signed up. Ten million are in households with household incomes of $75,000 a year and could afford it if they wanted to. Furthermore, an enormous number in that 47 million are not American citizens. Sixty percent of the uninsured in San Francisco are not citizens." So this 47 million uninsured number that the left and the media is always throwing around is disingenuous, it's largely irrelevant. They portray this number and it's grown from 42 to 43 million during the Clinton days, now it's magically up to 47 million and is just as accurate as their homeless number was inaccurate. So of the 47 million, they try to paint this picture that the system is so unfair and so mean that it's leaving 47 million Americans out, and it is not doing so. Now, Obama just strode to the podium. We're not going to JIP this. We're not going to cover this. We'll get sound bites from it later on. I got a note from a friend of mine today, "The AMA will probably cave, Rush. They're sounding really tough against him now but everybody thinks they're going to cave because everybody else caves before Obama." Here's the one heavy hand he has on it. He already determines what they make when they treat Medicare patients. They already are in charge of reimbursement. It takes them whatever time they want to reimburse the doctor, and they reimburse whatever they want to reimburse. And Obama has said, further, he is going to squeeze the doctors and the insurance companies, which means he's going to reduce their fees even more. But there's a large bit of fear of this guy in every plan he comes up with, whether it be this health care reform plan or the TARP plan, the stimulus money, or whatever, there's just genuine fear, and these people cave. Everybody's afraid of government. That's not a good sign for the United States of America. I run into more people who are more afraid of their government today than at any time in my life. So I don't know whether the AMA is going to cave or not. He's probably going to offer a bunch of platitudinous things here that will never really be in the final deal just to get them. We know the guy says things that aren't true; we know he makes it up, we know he lies; we know he presents the either/or option. He'll try to legitimize their concerns while saying his concerns are legitimate, too, we'll have to work together in getting along and then he'll forget what their concerns are and just impose them. Of course, we can't impose our values anywhere else but Obama can impose his values anywhere he wants to go. Other items in the health care stack. Joe Lieberman has now come out in opposition to the public plan in Obama care. He said this weekend he opposes the public option for consumers. "'I don't favor a public option,' Lieberman told Bloomberg News in an interview broadcast this weekend. And I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market." And there is. There are 1,300 different ways you can go to get health insurance. Lieberman says, "We have a unique opportunity, a real opportunity to do this year what we've been trying to do for years, which is to reform American healthcare. I think the one thing that will stop that is pressure on the so-called public option." So there's a Democrat not in favor of it, but with all these czars that he has appointed, which give him dictatorial control over every department where there is a czar, Robert Byrd, Democrat Senator, has sent Obama a letter essentially saying, you know, what you're doing here is unconstitutional because the czars do not have to go to confirmation hearings, the czars do not get approved or interviewed, nobody knows what they do. They're paid by Obama, they're ordered to do what they do by Obama. Cabinet secretaries have been rendered secondary or tertiary role, the czars lead the way, the czars do not go through the legislative process, they do not go to the confirmation process. It's statist behavior, it's authoritarian behavior. It is Obama basically saying screw the way we've set this country up as a representative republic. I'm going to rule this country. I'm not going to govern it, I'm going to rule it. Also, a friend of mine related to health care, this has been an eye-opening experience for me. See, I have a cat, and I don't have to do anything with the cat except take her to the vet for normal checkups and teeth cleanings and stuff like that. A friend of mine just got a little puppy. Now, the friend of mine travels a lot and has been busy and has been traveling around finding various places to park the puppy, and there's a place up in Jupiter called Fur Seasons, the Fur Seasons Dog Resort. You can get a room for your dog with a television in it. There are these places all over the country. And I started thinking about this in relation to American health care. The private sector is providing dog owners every option they want for their dogs to be cared for in a great way, or if you just want to park the dog in a cage in some kennel you can do that, too, if you want to go high end you can do that, but it's all private sector. It's much cheaper than human care, don't misunderstand, but you know how people are with their animals. Animals are, by definition, pets, essentially helpless. They become domesticated they become dependent on human beings. They attach themselves, some might say they fall in love with their human beings, it's a debatable thing but they still do get attached and so they're cared for. I go through this list of options that a dog owner has for its health, for its well-being and they're all in the private sector, and there's no federal dog health care plan out there and it's working just fine. And it's based on the dog owner's ability to pay. There's no insurance involved. Some of them don't even take credit cards. But it works. Are you comparing dogs to human beings? No. I'm comparing the private sector to the public sector. If the government was into dog care, if you had to take your dog to government-run Fur Seasons or whatever it is, I guarantee you wouldn't want to leave your dog there because there would be no guarantee it would be alive when you got back. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Now, I want to expand on this business I spoke about. We're back to health care here for just a second. I mentioned a friend of mine, a girlfriend, got a new puppy. It's an old English sheepdog. It's the cutest little thing. It's about eight. (interruption) What are you...? What are you...? What are you laughing at, Snerdley. What are you laughing at? What's so funny? Girlfriend got a dog. What's so funny? No, I'm not baby-sitting a dog. The dog's been over to the house. You ought to see the dog and Punkin. We thought going to be some fur flying here, but there wasn't. There was just genuine curiosity. Punkin hissed a couple times. It's a puppy bounding around. You know, Punkin looks at the dog like, "Shut up, you little kid. Stop bothering me." You know, cats are very indifferent. But no. No territorial battles or anything. The dog is even eating some of Punkin's food, and Punkin doesn't care. No, I'm not baby-sitting the dog. I wouldn't mind if I baby-sat the dog. It's a cute little thing. It's an old English sheepdog named Abbey. Anyway, we've been looking for things to do with the dog when it needs to be baby -- and we found all kinds of options where this dog can live in dog luxury, and it is just amazing. I mean, some of these places will come pick up the dog. If you're just going to be gone all day and there's nobody to take the dog out, you take the dog to dog day care. (interruption) No, I'm not... (chuckling) Snerdley is trying to suggest here that I have enslaved myself. No. (interruption) I've been out walking the dog. I've been out with the dog. But not by my... (interruption) What? (interruption) No, I did... (interruption) I do not... (interruption) No, I don't have the pooper scooper. Would you let me stick to the point? Once again I am in the middle of a brilliant point and the staff wants to go all sexist here thinking I'm turning into a slave. This is the cute he is little puppy and it is... Let me tell you what I did. When I learned all of the options there are for this puppy when it has to be left or treated or done something, when it has to go to the vet or whatever. I went online last night, and I started doing some research on this, and I found a place. This is page one. I'm going to give you the details of a brochure from the Park East Animal Hospital in New York. Park East Animal Hospital. Now, I'm doing this because Obama is up there talking about how he's going to "save" health care and all that by destroying it. In dog care, in animal care you can have any option you want. It's all there. You pay for it at whatever level of service you want for your dog. There's no "government option." There's no government involvement, and it's all affordable -- and listen to just page one here from the Park East Animal Hospital. "Appointments 7 days a week with evening appointments Monday through Friday. Nursing care 365 days a year, with technicians continuously on duty. Around-the-clock / 24 hour emergency service," for your dog or cat. "Calls responded to immediately by staff, not answering services or machines." It strikes me. Have you ever called some company and a machine answered, "Your call is important to us." Well, if it was important then how come a machine is answering? Well, at the Park East Animal Hospital calls are responded to immediately by human beings. "House calls and supportive home nursing assistance," are offered. "Affordable preventive medicine and client education on topical issues," for your dog or cat. "Top grade, board-certified medical and surgical specialists available for consultations." Free. "Special discounts and free first examination for rescued strays and newly adopted pets from shelters." This is health care for pets. Health care for pets from a private practitioner, not a government program, and they're all over the country, outfits like this. You know, people get as attached to their animals and their pets, especially dogs. I mean, a cat you can leave alone. It will take care of itself. Just leave the food out and litter box and go to town. Cats are independent. But a dog, they become the essence of innocence. They don't become attached to you. They can't. Well, the owner thinks the dog can't survive. These people are smart at these cat and dog hospitals. They understand the relationship between the owner and the pet and they're there to serve that owner's desire, and they do it and they'll charge -- and you know people pay for it. They'll pay for it just as much as they'll pay for their kids because that's how important the pets are to them. So you have health care for pets. You have a private practitioner, not a government program. Whenever you hear, whenever you hear a liberal promise government help that will give you universal care, better care, at lower cost -- whenever you hear that -- just sit back and you know what your response ought to be? "Arf! Arf! Arf!" Bark like your dog does, because your dog has it, without the governments being involved -- and this is not a conclusion that is out of bounds or a stretch. It's health care. It's care that's just as important to pet owners as their own health care is, probably more so because most people think they can handle most illnesses that they have themselves. A dog or cat gets sick, what do you do? They have to take it to the vet and you can find whatever level of service that you want. They even offer special evening appointments on Monday, and that's just page one of the brochure from the Park East Animal Hospital. So stop and think about that the next time you get involved in any kind of debate about human health care and how the government's gonna make it better and so forth. Ask yourself: If the same kind of care, whatever price you want to pay, whatever level of service you want, is available for your dog, why is it not available to you? BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: By the way, the health care industry is now one-fifth of the US economy. There's a dollar amount that you can put to that: $2.5 trillion. That's how much is at stake, that's how much, 2.5 trillion, that's how much wealth the federal government wants to take out of the private sector, how much it wants to deplete from the private economy and add to the government economy, 2.5 trillion. That's what Obama is actually wanting, is control of $2.5 trillion. And that, my friends, is the way you have to look at it. All right, we're going to start on the phones in Downingtown, Pennsylvania. Tom, hello, sir. Great to have you here. CALLER: Hi, Rush. Nice to talk to you. RUSH: Thank you, sir. CALLER: Listen, the point I wanted to make is insurance has to go back to being insurance. You know, the definition of insurance is people share, put their money in a pool, for unexpected risks. Well, a heart attack is an unexpected risk, but drugs and doctor visits are not. You're just pre-paying for that. It would be like having grocery insurance where you paid a thousand dollars a month and, you know, every time you needed food you called up your insurance company -- RUSH: That's exactly right. You are right on the money, A-100 percent. CALLER: Right. I appreciate it. That's all I wanted to say. RUSH: See, everybody wants validation from the host. Do you realize I just made Tom's day by telling him how brilliant his point is. He's going to live off that for at least a year. Everybody wants validation, everybody wants an attaboy now and then, and what better attaboy can you get than from me, especially on this topic. He's right on the money. This is what the Safeway CEO's op-ed in the Journal was about last week when he said we have modeled ourselves at Safeway here after auto insurance, varying levels of premiums, based on how well you drive or how poorly you drive or what a big risk your kids are or what have you. But the argument is the same. Suppose you had to go get hotel room insurance or food insurance, suppose the same concept in health care attached itself to everything else that you consider vital. You know, we can't live without food, that's a necessity. Health care has become that in people's minds. So imagine the same kind of food care provided by the government. In fact, we've got it. Food stamps. You know, this is the only country where poverty leads to obesity. Stop and think of that. And why is that? 'Cause with the food stamps you go in there and buy the Twinkies, the Milk Duds, six-pack of Bud, bag of potato chips, head home to one of your two color TVs as you live in poverty to watch the NFL on satellite TV, and turn off your cell phone so that you don't get interrupted. That's poverty in the United States, compared to elsewhere around the world. By the way, I have a story here in the stack. I shouldn't laugh. I shouldn't convey that I draw pleasure from this. (laughing) But some of you who accepted extensions in unemployment compensation have become ineligible for food stamps, because your total compensation has lifted you above the ceiling where you qualify for food stamps. I love it. The reason I love it is because when you depend on Washington, all you're gonna get is basic survival. 5) Reflections On The Iranian Enigma. The World Turned Upside Down Pajamas Media http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/reflections-on-the-iranian-enigma/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2271989/posts June 14, 2009 Victor Davis Hanson Thoughts Tonight on Iran 1) Why did we reject the Bush policy of non-engagement with a monster like Ahmadinejad, who oppressed his own and threatened nuclear destruction to Israel? Is it all that moral, or all that wise, or all that much in US realpolitik interests to apologize to a thug? Does it show solidarity with the Iranian people to court a nut? What is so smart in making Iran the center of our attention rather than the Maliki democratic government in Iraq? Hamas rather than democratic Israel? Is what we are now seeing in the streets of Iran proof of all the praise once heaped on theocratic "democratic" Iran by the likes of Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and the NY Times? 2) Will someone please tell President Obama that when you send videos to Ahmadinejad, apologize for something that happened over a half-century ago, and ignore serial Iranian killing of Iraqi and American democrats in Iraq, you, well, send a message that implicitly you either approve of him-or are afraid of him? One of two things is happening in Iran: either a boasting, cocky Ahmadinejad rigged the election, without worry that anyone-much less the present US-would care. Or, if the election result is semi-accurate (I doubt it), he energized his base, by showing the rural believers that even much worshipped Barack Hussein Obama was courting their all-wise leader and de facto agreeing to the new Persian Islamic nuclear hegemony. 3) So what constitutes Obama's morality? Courting the Islamic street by distorting history? Being more critical of one's own democratic open society than the autocratic Arab governments you seek to placate? Using your middle name abroad to court favor and separate yourself from America's past, while insisting that those who invoke it at home are as illiberal as you are liberal in broadcasting it? 4) Much of Iran wants what they see going on in Iraq. How odd that the 'experts' assured us that Bush had empowered Iran by removing his rival Saddam. Perhaps in the short term-but in the long term TV, radio, and osmosis from free Iraq is proving more destabilizing to the theocracy in Iran than are Iran's Revolutionary Guards and shaped charged IEDs to Iraq. 5) As Aristotle saw, amorality is as much an absence of moral judgment as it is a commission of sin. When Obama lavishes more attention on Chavez, Castro, Ortega, Ahmadinejad, or a Saudi royal than he does on our struggling democratic friends in Iraq, Israel, Columbia and eastern Europe, he sends a message: 'I wish to be loved, adored, to be seen as absolutely even-handed, even more than I do to take risks for those of you who bravely risk even more by championing freedom and consensual government.' 6) In Obama's morally equivalent universe, when all leaders are alike, when there is no moral difference between nations, when a handful of classical texts that survived only in Arabic written by Muslims are equivalent to the entire transmission of classical learning through thousands of manuscripts in Europe, then there is no A or B, just AB, then there is no bad or good, no nothing really. Yes, he certainly is not a "Manichean" like Bush, who saw the world in moral absolutes. Yes, but he is certainly also a moral relativist, who cannot distinguish an Ahmadinejad from a Maliki, a Netanyahu from Abbas, a Chavez from an Uribe. Everything is contingent on being liked, or rather worshipped. I was proud of Bush when Chavez trashed him, when Ahmadinejad blasted Bush, when Putin slurred Bush-and very worried when they began to court Obama whom they either saw as a patsy to be used or a friend-to be used. Years from now do we really think there will be some great revisionism and the world will come to love the 'peacemaker' Chamberlain or Baldwin, and despise the troublemaker Churchill? I think not. Obama has applause for the moment, it is true, but for all our sakes, he better start thinking of respect from the ages. 6) Sarah Palin, The 21st Century 'It' Girl American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/sarah_palin_the_21st_century_i.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2271903/posts 6-15-09 Jay Valentine The best and the brightest on the left go into politics. The best on the right run their own businesses. So it is no surprise that the left is far more adept, even expert at the art of hardball politics. And they are telling us something profound. The left is telling us something many feel, many find as a hunch, that Sarah Palin is the most dangerous threat to the Obama administration with no close second. The left is telling us this by their "over the top" attacks. Not just the Letterman assaults, but the constant barrage of grievances filed against her in Alaska. The attacks every day on Palin for no apparent reason -- except that the left seems to see her quite differently from any Republican candidate. A difference of kind, not of degree. They would never do this to Romney, Huckabee or Newt, at least not to this level. There is a clear reason -- these guys couldn't fill up a high school stadium unless they were giving out free beer. What is the Sarah difference? Well, it's not the issues, at least that is not all of it. It is the charisma factor. Charisma is not learned, it is innate. One is born with it and no amount of training can inject it. Jack Kennedy had it. So did Reagan. Now Obama. Out of the thousands of politicians who have come and gone over the last generation, not one other person has shown "it." Money is no longer the life blood of politics. Charisma is. Charisma can raise money overnight; money far beyond what a tired, inarticulate incumbent can raise from rich donors. When you have "it," the conventional rules no longer apply. Reagan was vilified in 1976 and few thought he could ever be president. No matter how the liberals berated him as a "dumb actor" who made chimp movies and the actor who never got the girl, he just looked the American people in the eye, gave them a dose of common sense and it was over. Carter went on to build low income houses and a life of obscurity punctuated by mischief. The street fighting, world class, lifelong political experts of the left see "it" and it makes them crazy. They went crazy for Obama; they are going crazy for Palin, although in the other direction. Palin could fill a stadium if she were reciting a cookbook. But she isn't. She is delivering common sense to an electorate that is becoming ever more jaded every day with the Obama nonsense. Miranda rights for terrorists? $4 trillion deficit? Look at the blow she delivered with one phrase about "styrofoam columns" and imagine what she can do with the material Obama has recently given her. Opposing Palin's values has no payoff for the left. They oppose those values for any conservative. They have to destroy her. And that is her power because they can't destroy her. Whenever she chooses, she will take her first trip to Iowa to campaign for some obscure congressional candidate, and when she does, the liberal media cannot ignore the screaming crowds. And they will not be crowds manufactured by an advance team. They will be fired up mothers, working people who do not want to pay for deadbeats' mortgages, people who are now going to grass roots tea parties. The television age gives "it," charisma, more power than ever before. Charisma is magnified through television. How else to explain how a 2 year senator few knew could derail Hillary in a few months. How else to explain how an anti-charisma John McCain, someone television does not flatter or magnify, saw his crowds surge when Palin was next to him. Palin, an obscure, unknown governor of our most distant and most unknown state, walked onto the national stage and ignited a burst of energy that may well have taken McCain over the top, until his Queeg-like pausing of his campaign to work on a financial crisis and then vote for a bailout. The landscape is now quite different. There are tens of millions of people who never voted for Obama, telling their friends "don't blame me." There is a growing number who did vote for Obama who have lost their jobs at car dealerships, who have not found work yet even after the massive spending, and there are those who just say "...this is not the change I had in mind." Some thought McCain would be the anti-charisma candidate against the charisma candidate and that would work. Now we may be lining up for the common sense charisma campaign against the nonsense charisma. The left is telling us something and they are the experts. They are telling us not to make Palin the conservative candidate because if we do, it will be humiliating. I agree with them and I take them at their word. It will be the undoing of Obama, and it may be overwhelming. 7) Opposing Obama In 2010 Townhall.com http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=84e3a053-dfe7-4e6a-8bfb-2aa82c85baeb&t=c http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2273047/posts June 16, 2009 Lorie Byrd When Barack Obama won the election last year, enjoying the adulation of not only millions of devoted followers, but of an overwhelming majority of those in the media, conventional wisdom was that it would be hard for those in Congress to oppose him. Every president enjoys a honeymoon period to one degree or another. I believed Barack Obama's would last at least six months, but I was terribly wrong. While President Obama still enjoys healthy personal favorability ratings, the popularity of his agenda is lagging behind and falling fast. His out-of-control spending and policies which include a frightening expansion of government intervention in the private sector have resulted in recent polls showing Republicans being favored over Democrats on a number of issues, including the economy. The number of people who identify themselves as conservatives is now at the highest point in five years at 40 percent. Dick Morris and Eileen McGann recently noted: "As it becomes clearer that the deficit caused by spending has landed us in a new economic crisis, entirely of Obama's own making, his popularity and job performance are likely to drop as well. The old recession, which the public says Bush caused, shows signs of winding down. But the new recession and/or inflation, which Obama's massive deficits triggered, is just now coming upon us." Americans have now gotten a taste of Obamanomics and so far they are not liking it. Additional goals of the administration, such as health care reform, are now being introduced. In his health care speech this week Obama called those opposed to his plan naysayers who are "not telling the truth." Obama denies their claims that he is proposing government-run health care. Also not true, according to Vice President Joe Biden, are claims that the administration wants to tax health care benefits. This weekend on Meet the Press, David Gregory asked Biden about the possibility of raising taxes to pay for health care reform, specifically asking if the president would "sign a bill that taxes health care benefits for employees." Biden responded, "We made it clear we do not think that is the way to go. We think that is the wrong way to finance this legislation." But when pressed by Gregory and asked if that means the president wouldn't sign it, Biden replied, "I didn't say that... We'll have to see what the whole bill says. But we made it clear we do not believe you should be taxing, taxing the benefits that people receive through their employers now." So the administration does not want to take the unpopular position of taxing employee health care benefits, but would consider signing a bill including such a provision. This is not an unfamiliar strategy for Obama. In his speeches he plays the moderate, reasonable man looking for the best way to address the crisis of the day. He accuses those who oppose him of playing politics, or being out of touch, or of being extreme, or of lying. At times, he even throws his political allies under the bus. By blaming the Democrat-led Congress in advance, in case he eventually signs an unpopular tax increase, he is doing just that. In many ways the first months of the Obama administration resemble those of the Clinton administration. A man who was elected as a moderate (although in Obama's case that was a misperception) wins the White House with the promise of "hope" and "change." The economy was a big issue in both elections -- although in Clinton's case the economy was well into recovery. Both men promised middle class tax cuts. Both men reneged on that promise. Both men vastly overreached in their policy proposals and governed in a much more liberal fashion than acceptable to the majority of Americans. Bill Clinton was not on the ballot in 1994, nor will Barack Obama be on the ballot in 2010. Barack Obama has blamed virtually all of the country's problems on George W. Bush, but now appears to be setting up the Congress as an additional target of blame. Bill Clinton's party lost big time in 1994 -- beyond "big time" actually. The result of the 1994 election was historic. If current trends continue Barack Obama's party may lose big time in 2010. That will especially be the case if Obama continues to set himself (and his personal approval) apart from those in his party. Elected Democrats who want to return to Congress and remain in the majority read opinion polls. They can see that the number of Americans self identifying as conservative is rising. They can read the public opinion poll numbers for individual issues and policies, as well. They realize that Americans are not happy with the huge spending and excessive government control they are seeing now and are wary of future proposals. Over the next year it will be interesting to see what Democrats in Congress do. Will they pass liberal legislation that gives President Obama what he could never publicly request, but would gladly sign? Or will they follow the polls and retreat from their leftward march? If the results of the legislation Congress passed and the President signed over the past few months proves to be bad enough, could it be possible that Democrats in Congress (especially those in "red" states) might even feel the need to run against Obama in the 2010 elections? Watch the opinion polls over the next six months and you should have the answer. 8) 1984 All Over Again American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/1984_all_over_again.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2272786/posts June 16, 2009 Rick Moran On the night of June 24, ABC News will turn their broadcast over to the White House so that Obama can sell his national health insurance program. Here's the Drudge piece on this radical, dangerous, and outrageous threat to freedom of the press: "On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm! Highlights on the agenda: ABC NEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House. The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate. MORE Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABC NEWS: Dear Mr. Westin: As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform "town hall" at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC's web news "will all feature special programming on the president's health care agenda." This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president's health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming." The GOP requested time to present their health care plan -- rebuffed by ABC. The Republicans are also saying that this is little more than a White House infomercial and they should have to pay for the privilege of all this free air time. It is true that the networks routinely hand over time to the party in power so that the president can address the nation. But this is much different. In essence, I agree with Drudge; this makes ABC a part of the executive branch - a cog in the Obama PR machine. It makes a cruel joke of the idea of an independent press. Exit question; will any journalists resign as a result of this insult to the idea of freedom of the press? Hat Tip: Rich Baehr Thomas Lifson adds: This isn't even NBC, whose corporate parent is dependent on Obama for billions in windmill and "smart grid" underwriting, not to mention bailout for its financial interests. We seem to have the broadcast nets one-upping each other to support Obama. 9) Why Obama Wants To Hide Birth Certificate World Net Daily http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=101162 Free Republic (excerpted) Posting June 16, 2009 Joseph Farah Since I began my quixotic campaign to uncover Barack Obama's birth certificate, many have asked me about the president's possible motives for hiding it with such tenacity and diligence. I think there are many plausible motives: - Perhaps something in that birth certificate, if it indeed exists, would contradict assertions Obama has made about his life's story. These might even involve his true parental heritage. Without a real birth certificate, no one really knows who his parents were. So it is ridiculous even to speculate about whether citizenship could be conferred upon him by his mother, when we don't know for sure who his mother is. - Perhaps it reveals a foreign birth, as Hawaii allowed for in 1961 while still issuing the "certification of live birth" we have seen posted on his website. - Or perhaps it will show just what Obama has claimed all along - a birth in Hawaii to two officially non-citizen parents, for the purpose of establishing "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution. What do I mean by that last possibility? Well, as you know, in 2008, the Senate of the United States held hearings to determine if one of the presidential candidates fulfilled the requirement of being a "natural born citizen." It wasn't Barack Obama. It was John McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base overseas to two U.S. citizens. On April 10 of last year, two senators, both Democrats, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced a resolution into upper house expressing a sense of the Senate that McCain was indeed a "natural born citizen." It's interesting what Leahy had to say on the subject: "Because he was born to American citizens (emphasis added), there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the U.S. Senate." And, indeed it was. It was also, interestingly, the only such hearing held by the Congress on the subject of "natural born citizenship" and its application to the 2008 presidential race. Why was that interesting? Because everyone involved in this process knew - or should have known - that the life story told by Barack Obama would raise far more doubts about his eligibility than McCain's. Notice Leahy did not say one parent citizen would qualify a child for "natural born citizenship." He indicated it would take two to tango. He did so again at a Judiciary Committee hearing April 3, when he asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts about McCain's eligibility to serve as president. "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff responded - again underlining the fact that both parents would need to be citizens. And what did Leahy say to that? "That is mine, too." By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" - the offspring of two U.S. citizens. Now, I don't know who Barack Obama's parents are, because I have never seen his birth certificate. All I've seen is a facsimile of a "certification of live birth" on the Internet. That document, even if genuine, proves nothing about Obama's birth in Hawaii or who his parents were. Hawaii had a very slipshod practice in 1961 of issuing these documents to babies born outside the country and listing parents who may not have been the parents at all. But I do know who Barack Obama claims his parents were. According to him, neither one of them was an American citizen able to confer natural born citizenship on a child. One, Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign national from Kenya, and the other, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to have qualified under the law for bestowing that privilege on her son, even if the father had been a citizen and even in the unlikely event Obama was actually born in Hawaii! So, if we are to take Obama at his word, he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to serve as president. If he is to be judged by the same standard as his opponent in the race, there is no way he qualifies. That's what Leahy said. That's what Chertoff said. That's what the law says. A logical question naturally follows: Why didn't the Congress of the United States hold hearings on Obama's eligibility when they did so on McCain's eligibility? I'm still trying to figure that one out. Maybe the answer is this simple: Because there's no way Obama would have qualified. Another logical question follows: Why is this man still serving in the White House and turning the country upside down when he is not even constitutionally eligible? That's the heart and soul of the campaign I've been running. By the way, further establishing that it was impossible for Obama to have been a "natural born citizen" are some astonishing words found on his own campaign website. They indicate that Obama was "at birth" a citizen of Kenya and a subject of Great Britain. Why did the founders insist upon a "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution? To avoid questions of divided loyalties. (Just scroll down the webpage and read the FactCheck.org excerpt to see this amazing admission for yourself.) So, again, I ask: Why doesn't Obama want to reveal his real birth certificate? Because he wants this discussion of eligibility to go away - once and for all. It is a vulnerability he cannot explain away. So he would rather not discuss it at all. But let me remind you all, in case you hadn't considered this: Obama plans to run for re-election in 2012. And that's why we can never, ever let this matter rest. 10) There Is No Health Care "Crisis" RushLimbaugh.com http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2273122/posts?page=10#10 June 16, 2009 Rush Limbaugh RUSH: To the phones. Manhattan, Kansas, this is Dale. Thank you for calling, sir. It's great to have you here with us. CALLER: Honored to talk to you, sir. RUSH: I can understand. Thank you. CALLER: My question is -- and I'm throwing this out to you -- what exactly is the crisis in health care? I've been hearing about "crisis" in health care ever since the Hillary days. And quite honestly, I don't see it. Now, I'm not among the intellectual elite in this country -- RUSH: Good. CALLER: -- but I still can't see it. RUSH: That means you're a real guy. CALLER: Thank you. RUSH: You bet. It's a great question. The "crisis" in health care is like the "crisis" in everything else: manufactured. CALLER: Precisely. RUSH: Take a little survey. Dale, are you personally fretting? Are you in crisis mode? Are you walking around in a general state of fear over the fact you might get sick? CALLER: No. RUSH: Do you know anybody who is? CALLER: Oh, there's a lot of hypochondriacs out there but -- RUSH: Yeah, but are they worried about losing everything they own if they do get sick? CALLER: Well, sure, but there's a real easy solution to that. I'm a small businessman out there -- and by "small," I mean probably microbusiness. I employ anywhere from six to ten people depending on the economy. I am able to offer my employees at no cost to them major medical coverage through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas for $150 a month each. And I pay for that, by the way. RUSH: Yes? CALLER: So what's the crisis? RUSH: Well, that's my point, that's my point. There is no... You're asking a very valid question. There is no crisis. The crisis in health care is in the UK. The crisis in health care is in Canada. The crisis in health care is in Cuba. The crisis in health care is with the ChiComs. The crisis in health care is with a lot of other places. The crisis in health care here has been manufactured. My point is, folks -- just ask yourself in your own circle of friends, your family, community, your neighborhood, whatever -- how many people do you know who are actually walking around daily in fear, constantly fear of an auto accident or a major disease is going to wipe 'em out? This is what we've been told every day, just like during the last eight years -- well, seven years prior to this year -- we were told the economy was sinking fast that it was approaching a recession. It was horrible while unemployment was low, an historical full time low of 4.7%. Now it's 9.4%. When it was 4.7% we were all being told daily by State-Run Media that the economy was in the tank and going south and it was horrible, it was horrible. And so they go out and do surveys and polls of people: "How are you doing economically?" "Oh, I'm doing fine, but I'm worried about my neighbor. I guess things aren't so good out there." It's the same thing with health care. "How is your health care?" "I pretty much like it, but I guess there's a lot of people out there uninsured and really have a lot of trouble out there." It's just been manufactured. There is no "crisis" in health care unless you want to talk about the 47 million uninsured, then if you break down that number, you find that 60% of them are illegal aliens. Others make income over 75 grand who choose not to have it. That's the crisis -- and there may be people that costs are a little bit high, but that's because of government involvement. Heritage Foundation today, simply to get, great stuff here. "Yesterday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a preliminary analysis of the Kennedy-Dodd health care plan, and the results were truly frightening. Assessing just Title I of the draft legislation, CBO estimated the plan..." Now listen to this. Look at me. "CBO estimated the plan would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit while only extending health insurance to a net 16 million more Americans." Now, I mentioned this earlier: $1 trillion for one-third of the uninsured. "As scary as that is, what is even more disturbing is what costs the CBO did not estimate: 'The proposal does not include a 'public plan' that would be offered in the exchanges, nor does it contain provisions that would require employers to offer health insurance benefits or impose a fee or tax on them if they did not offer insurance coverage to their workers.'" In other words, the $1 trillion cost to insure 16 million uninsured does not include the public option! And the public option is the deal that Obama wants. This cost doesn't even estimate that. What Obama is going to do is throw this out. He'll say, "This is not accurate. We're not going to listen to this," and he'll have his own Office of Management and Budget do it. Now... "Even without the public plan, the CBO analysis undercuts one of the fundamental promises President Barack Obama has repeatedly made about health care reform. Speaking to the American Medical Association yesterday, President Obama promised: 'If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.' The CBO," the so-called nonpartisan CBO "disagrees. According to their analysis, while the Kennedy-Dodd bill would enable 39 million Americans to obtain health insurance, the plan would kick about 15 million people out of the system because their employers would no longer offer insurance..." The employers would opt into the public option. There are a lot of employers want to off-load this. "[C]overage from other sources would decline by 8 million." So 27 million people would be thrown off insurance rolls and have to go public option. You would lose your choice of doctor. "These numbers will only look worse once a public plan is factored in. And the public plan is just one of the biggest problems in the Kennedy-Dodd bill: "An independent analysis by the Lewin Group, for example, shows that a public plan depending on eligibility and payments rates could result in up to 119.1 million Americans being switched by their employers from their existing coverage or transferred to government-sponsored coverage..." This is why it's Trojan horse and this is why he's denying this, saying it's not going to happen. But in the real world -- where they never score dynamics, they only score statics in these things. Score the dynamics and you got a bunch of businesses with a chance to off-load their health care expenses to the so-called public option, you don't think that some will do it? And the estimates of the numbers that want to do it will lead "up to 119.1 million Americans being switched by their employers from their existing coverage or transferred to government-sponsored coverage," the public option. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Back to that CBO report, the public option not even part of this $1 trillion, Obama says nobody's going to lose their health plan. That's absolute BS. UAW, the big unions, big companies, they're going to dump all their health care costs on the taxpayers. That's why Obama and company are going to fight like hell for this public option. That's why we gotta continue -- BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Washington Post today: "More Problems Than Solutions in Medicare Report." Now, this is not the CBO score of Obama's health care proposal. This is a separate report on Medicare. Now, keep in mind that Obama's health care public option proposal is essentially just expanding Medicare as it exists. In fact, they start the story this way: "Expanding access to Medicare will not solve the nation's health-care cost problem. That's the message of a report yesterday by a commission that advises Congress on the federal medical program for older Americans." Expanding access will not solve its problem. Of course not, 'cause it's broke! "To eliminate wasteful spending, policymakers must transform economic incentives for doctors, hospitals and other providers of medical services -- though it isn't clear how, according to the report. As Congress and the Obama administration seek to restrain potentially crushing increases in health-care spending, the report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is emblematic of the larger debate: long on problems and short on solutions. ... To illustrate what it might take to save Medicare, the commission describes how primary-care doctors, specialists and hospitals could be reorganized into 'accountable care organizations' whose members would receive bonuses if the organizations met quality and cost targets." Oh, they want to have private sector incentives here, is that what they're talking about? "To ratchet up the incentives, health-care providers that fail to meet cost and quality targets could be penalized." Now, the program here says this: "If current spending and utilization trends continue, the Medicare program is fiscally unsustainable. ... Part of the problem is that Medicare's fee-for-service payment systems reward more care -- and more complex care -- without regard to the quality or value of that care." So we have two things that hit yesterday. We had the CBO report on Obama's health care plan -- well, it's the Kennedy plan, but it's the Obama plan being run by Kennedy and whoever else in the Senate. I forget who other guy with him is. Anyway, that would take $1 trillion over ten years just to insure one-third of the 47 million uninsured. And then the Medicare report says that the government's Medicare program is fiscally unsustainable. There's no reason to do any of this. There is no reason to do any of it, fiscally, common sense. The only reason to do this is if you are an authoritarian and you want to grab as much control of the US private sector health care system as you can. That's the only reason to do this, because there's not one common sense or financial or fiscal or business reason to do either of these things that are being proposed. Like I said last week, can we just wait to see if anything else Obama does works before we mess up with one-fifth of the US economy? BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Rich Lowry makes a good point in the column today I read in the New York Post. "Back in the mid 1990s, Gingrich proposed slowing the rate of growth of Medicare and Medicaid..." Remember the Democrats produced this fraudulent commercial Newt saying, ah, we just want to let Medicare and Medicaid wither on the vine. He wasn't talking about letting Medicare and Medicaid wither on the vine. He "was clobbered by Democrats and the press for waging war on the elderly and the indigent. Now, almost every other day, President Obama finds another hundred billion dollars to cut out of Medicare and Medicaid," in order pay for his big nationalized health care, and nobody is upset about it! Can you remember a time when a government official started talking about cutting Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid and nobody beefed? Never! Obama is getting away with it each and every day. People will takedown their security for liberty all too frequently. RUSH: Let me ask you to consider another question, another point. Many people in this health care thing think what it's all about is them getting health care free 'cause it's unaffordable. They want their insurance free and their health care free. I'll ask you, the general audience, in addition to specifying how I just did it with people who think that health care is going to be given away. How many of you, at any time in your life, have gotten a comp of anything? Maybe it's a couple tickets to a game; maybe somebody gave you something, whatever. But just because it didn't cost you anything, did it mean it didn't cost anybody anything? Costs don't go away just because you don't happen to pay them. They'll come back and bite you in the rear end in you don't know how many different ways, what you're obligating yourself to -- or, in the case of Medicare, Medicaid, or health care, you think it doesn't cost you anything so it doesn't cost anybody anything? It's going to cost somebody something, and they're going to come back and get it from you one way or the other. Either your service is going to go to hell and you're not going to get as good coverage 'cause you're not paying anything for it.. It's like Thomas Sowell said, he said this in a column in 2005: "Costs don't go away because you refuse to pay 'em any more than gravity goes away if you refuse to acknowledge it." Thinking that something doesn't cost you when it does have a price is the same thing as thinking gravity isn't going to kill you when you jump off the mountain. 11) Barack Obama: Lord Of The Flies The Rush Limbaugh Show http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2274038/posts June 17, 2009 Rush Limbaugh RUSH: It's even made the UK Telegraph, ladies and gentlemen. "Barack Obama Swats Fly During CNBC Interview." US President Obama swatted and killed a fly during an interview with CNBC and then they go on to describe, wow, after killing the fly, Obama said, "That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got the sucker." "As Obama started to respond to a question from the interviewer he became distracted by a fly buzzing around his head and started to laugh." We have audio on this. This is how it happened last night on CNBC, chief Washington correspondent John Harwood interviewing President Obama, and they had this exchange about a fly distracting them. OBAMA: (swatting away fly) Get outta here. HARWOOD: That's the most persistent fly I've ever seen. OBAMA: (Slapping fly) HARWOOD: Nice. OBAMA: Now, where were we? That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? I got -- I got the sucker. What do you think, Gibbs? GIBBS: That is very good. It's right there -- OBAMA: Right there. You want to film that? There it is. RUSH: The president of the United States just referred to an innocent animal as a sucker. After murdering a fly on national TV, called it a sucker. And then asked the most brilliant press secretary ever, Gibbs, what do you think of that, Gibbs, we need it on tape? Well, this has caused the State-Run Media to break out in a frenzy of praise for the great Obama, slayer of flies. They have compared him to Michael Jordan, Dirty Harry, and Mr. Miyagi from The Karate Kid. Here's a montage. Listen. O'DONNELL: A persistent fly learned a tough lesson yesterday: don't mess with the President of the United States. OLBERMANN: (music) Mr. Miyagi did it with chopsticks. LEE: He almost pulled like a 'Karate Kid,' like really focused, then swat. NAJARIAN: He took a lot of basketball with Michael Jordan. This guy knows what he's doing. SHUSTER: A fly and he nails it. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. HALL: Mr. Miyagi, just snapped it right up. Look at that intense look. HARWOOD: It was a Dirty Harry "make my day" moment, and at the end of the interview he picked up a napkin off the table, and said "I clean up after myself" and he picked up the fly off the carpet. RUSH: What a guy, a Dirty Harry moment wiping out a fly, a sucker. They're treating this like Obama wiped out Osama Bin Laden, but as I said I did this first. I did it on television, too, my TV show back in 1995. Let's see, we have a couple sound bites from that TV show. RUSH ARCHIVE: There's a fly flying around in here, Dick. Oh, man, it's a huge mama. (audience laughing) You see? It is. Looks pregnant. (audience laughing) Anyway-- RUSH: Later in the show, I then murder the sucker, but not with my hands like Obama. I used my shoe. And killing a fly with a shoe is a much bigger insult in the fly world than killing an insect or a fly with your hand. RUSH ARCHIVE: (clapping) All right, I hope you animal rights people are watching. (applause) It worked. Here. (audience reaction) Do you want some more? RUSH: Now, what you couldn't see there was I stomped on the sucker. I stomped on the fly and that's when I said, "It worked." I lifted my shoe to show the dead fly on the sole of the shoe, and then I asked other flies, "Do you want some more?" And I lifted my shoe again. And aside from those of you who saw the show at the time, did any of you hear about this? Did any of you hear any comparisons to me and Michael Jordan or Dirty Harry or Mr. Miyagi from The Karate Kid? Did anybody sing my praises what a great fly swatter I am? No. All I got was complaints from my viewing audience for taking up precious broadcast time on an insect. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Oh, by the way, I have forgotten, Cookie reminded me that the fly-killing episode at Rush Limbaugh the TV show was featured on Dick Clark's blooper show. It also won a Rushie Award. We knew we would never qualify for the Emmys so we gave ourselves awards, highlights of show every season. (laughing) BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: By the way, we found in our archives the clip from Dick Clark's Bloopers show where I got mentioned, we on our TV show got mentioned killing the fly. This is November 30th, 1995. RUSH ARCHIVE: You know, we made the Dick Clark Blooper show the other night with a clip from this very show. Yes, it's true, ladies and gentlemen, and I'd like to you see it if you missed it the first time. CLARK: Here's Rush Limbaugh and his latest opponent. RUSH: There's a fly flying around in here, Dick. Oh, man, it's a huge mama. (audience laughing) You see? It is. Looks pregnant. (audience laughing) Where is that fly? Look at that thing. See, you thought I was making this up. RUSH: That was great camera work by one of the cameramen to find that fly when it landed somewhere and he found it, got a close-up of it. So I was wrong. People did notice it. I wasn't given any special credit for it like capturing Bin Laden or any such thing and the Drive-Bys at the time did not go nutso over it like they are with Obama. Still, all over the news media today is evidence of Obama slaying a fly. I guess he would hurt a fly. 12) Bam Whines About Fox News; Claims To Lose Sleep Over Deficits RushLimbaugh.com http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2274010/posts 6/17/09 Rush Limbaugh RUSH: The Politico published a story a couple days ago in the evening: "'White House Reporters Phoning It In?' -- President Barack Obama traveled to Chicago Monday for a major speech on health care, but most of the reporters who cover him every day stayed in Washington and watched it all on TV. For media observers, it felt like a milestone moment: While reporters sometimes skip short fundraising-only trips or journeys in the waning days of a presidency, it's hard to remember a time when a president, in the prime of his presidency, traveled outside Washington for a major policy address just to have the press stay home. The reason for the change is simple: money." I wonder if this made Obama mad, all these adoring lap dogs staying home, staying in the office and watching on television. I have another theory. Why go? You don't need to go. You love the guy, you can love him from Chicago, from Washington for a couple hours. What's the point of going? It is a hassle to travel with the president. Why the hell go. They didn't expect any big news there; they had the speech in advance. You know, we used to have a watchdog media. That's what they were called, watchdog media, today it's a lap dog media, it's state-run, government-run media. But even at that, Obama is miserable. Last night on CNBC he talked to John Harwood who asked this question: "Media critics would say not only has it not come, but you have gotten such favorable press either because of bias or because you're good box office, that it's hurting the country because you're not being sufficiently held accountable for your policies. Could you assess that for us?" OBAMA: It's very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, that's a pretty -- HARWOOD: I assume you're talking about Fox? OBAMA: That's a pretty big megaphone and you'd be hard-pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front. RUSH: Oh, there he is whining about Fox News. He owns every news outlet in America and around the world, and he's whining and moaning about Fox News. Fox News is great, but the size of their audience pales in comparison when you add up every other media organization in the world that is run by Barack Obama. Now, what is it, a week from tonight I have a suggestion for my buddies at Fox News here. A week from tonight, two things will happen in the White House via ABC News, which is no longer independent. ABC News is part of the State-Run Media. The World News Tonight with Charles Gibson will originate from the Blue Room of the White House. The focal point will be health care. Later on 20/20 ABC will originate a program on Obama's health care proposal from the East Room. There will be no opponents, no critics. Now, this is ABC joining forces with the Obama administration to push a very important policy to him. How many of you understand that as an organization, or as an industry, and as journalists are taught, both sides of the story have to be part of every story? In fact, sometimes it gets maddening. Every story you see, every story you read is this way, it's structured this way 'cause this is how these people are taught. Okay, so you have the premise of the story, and then there's always somewhere in the story, "but critics say.." Now, depending on who the critics may be few and far between, but still, the critics are there. Both sides of the story, that's the structure, that is the theory, that's how they're taught. Do you know what some media guy at the Poynter Institute, which is a trade group that analyses media and advises it, "Hey, look, you know, this notion about having opposing points of view, that's not what the news is, that's not the requirement, this network can cover both sides of this, they don't have to have opponents in there from the RNC, they don't have to have Republicans in here objecting to this." So Obama is even standing on its head one of the tenets, quote, unquote, of journalism, State-Run Media. Now what? What should be done on Wednesday night on counter-program this? I have an idea for my buddies at Fox. On the network, on the television network, run a movie, the Manchurian Candidate. On the news channel, devote every show to health care with nothing but opponents, starting with -- well, Shep won't do it. Start with Bill O'Reilly. No, start with Beck. Get a head start, start with Glenn Beck at five o'clock, get nothing but opponents, since Obama is so upset with Fox anyway, since he doesn't get a fair break, let's just make it happen. It's not true anyway what he said about Fox. He's got countless Democrat contributors on that network that are constantly defending Obama. But go ahead, starting with Beck, do a show on Obama's health care with nothing but opponents. It doesn't have to be Republicans, just nothing but opponents, scholars, think tank people. Then O'Reilly picks it up and then Hannity does it, and then Greta does it. (interruption) Why are you frowning at me, El Snerdbo? Not gonna get arrested. He's not Chavez yet, arresting media. He's not there yet. But anyway, if state-run ABC can go in there and do their news from the East Room, do you think Fox will ever be doing that? You think Fox will ever do a special from the Blue Room or East Room? So just counter it. Just counter it and promote it big time. Nobody else will be willing to do it. You don't have to worry about CNN doing it. You don't have to worry about those klutzes over at CNN doing it. Fox is the natural place to do this. Just run a primetime counter, including Beck at five o'clock on the reasons Obama's health plan is bad, why it won't work and what it really will mean to people. Go ahead and let 20/20 have their one-hour of state-run propaganda from the East Room and let Charlie Gibson have his 30 minutes of news from the Blue Room. I take it back. It's 22 minutes of news from the Blue Room. And then over on the Fox network, it's summertime, you're not going to have to broom American Idol or "24" for it, go in there and show the Manchurian Candidate. It's what I would do. BREAK TRANSCRIPT Sound bite here, it's just ridiculous. It's nonsensical. It is absurd. In a CNBC interview last night, Obama is asked about deficits, spending, taxing health care, and all of this. "Specifically are you open to curbing benefits for entitlement programs, more means testing, raising the retirement age for Social Security?" Listen to his answer here. OBAMA: Well, uh, this is something that keeps me awake at night. There's no doubt that we got a serious problem in terms of our long-term deficits and debt. RUSH: Stop! OBAMA: I make no apologizes... RUSH: Stop the tape. Who created it? This is what's absurd about this. He's losing sleep over himself! Cue it back to the top. He's losing sleep over himself. I'll try to go through this without stopping again but it's tough, folks. It's tough to be lied to like this. It's tough to be insulted like this, to have your intelligence insulted like this, and sit here and not saying anything. OBAMA: Well, uh, this is something that keeps me awake at night. There's no doubt that we got a serious problem in terms of our long-term deficits and debt. I make no apologizes for having acted short-term to deal with our recession. RUSH: (snorts) OBAMA: I think the vast majority of economists, conservative and liberal, felt that extraordinary interventions were necessary to prevent us from slipping into a potentially deep depression. RUSH: No, they don't! OBAMA: As soon as this economy recovers -- and that means planning now and starting to take some steps now to deal with it -- we're going to have to close that gap between the going in and the amount of money going out. RUSH: It's a bunch of BS. Stop the spending! Look the stimulus isn't working right, and so far only four to 7% of it has been spent? Cut the rest of it! It isn't working. There's at least $700 billion we could save, and you might be able to sleep a couple more minutes at night. (interruption) No, I don't think he's losing sleep over anything. I think this guy... If he can't sleep it's, because he's excited. If he's losing sleep, it's because he's excited. He cannot believe how easy it is to take over all this stuff! He can't believe how easy it is to fool all these people. He can't believe what a stroke of good luck that an opposition party doesn't exist. He can't believe that there's not one Republican that will stand up and say, "Stop this!" I'm sure he can't... Well, I take it back. With this guy's ego, he probably is focused on Fox. He's never been criticized in his life. He's never been laughed at. I mean, folks, this is just... This is like Colonel Sanders saying, "We gotta stop killing and eating chickens." Now, there this next one. After saying, "We're going to do all this stuff. We gotta stop this recession. We gotta act fast! We gotta do this; we gotta do that. We gotta plan now for the recovery," the next question was, "Do you think unemployment will hit 10%?" OBAMA: Yes. HARWOOD: You do? This year? OBAMA: Yes. Uhh, I think that what you've seen is that the pace of job loss has slowed and I think that the economy is going to turn around, but as you know, jobs are a lagging indicator. Uhh, and we've gotta produce 150,000 jobs every month just to keep pace, just to flatten this out. HARWOOD: So when will it start to come down? OBAMA: You're starting to see the engines of the economy turn. It's going to take a long time. RUSH: (long sigh) Okay, so you're still losing your job; it doesn't matter. You're "a lagging indicator." We're not going to look at you. 13) Prepare For Canadian Health Care RushLimbaugh.com http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2273931/posts?page=10#10 June 17, 2009 Rush Limbaugh RUSH: Windsor, Ontario, Ed -- this is in Canada -- great to have you on the program, sir. Thank you for waiting. CALLER: Yes. Thank you for taking my call. RUSH: Yes, sir. CALLER: I have a concrete example of the effect of the Ontario, Canada, health care system on one family unfortunately. Today's Windsor Star newspaper, page five, this gentleman, he's 30 years old, husband, father, has been in the system treated for cancer, but it's come back. He has stage four melanoma. He has inoperable tumors on his heart and his colon. There's one treatment available to him now, it's Interleukin 2. It's essentially unavailable in Canada. He and his wife, after hassling with the bureaucrats of the Ontario, Canada, health care system, which is so praised, two months of hassling, they got approved to go to the United States and have the treatment done and paid for. There are two world class treatment centers in Detroit, about a half hour from his house. I'm looking at GM building in Detroit right now across the river. RUSH: Right. CLARK: Okay. He did not get approved for Harbor Hospital or Karmanos Cancer Center in Detroit. He got approved by the Ontario system for the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York. Instead of a half hour trip there and a half hour trip back -- I've had cancer treatment and I'm -- RUSH: Wait a second. There's one word in what you're saying -- CALLER: Yeah. RUSH: -- that ought to send chills up people's back and the word is approved. Here you're describing a Canadian citizen with stage four melanoma and only a couple treatments available. CALLER: One treatment. RUSH: One treatment available. And he has only been approved to go to one hospital that happens to be in Buffalo, approved. That's where we're headed, approved. You mean to tell me this guy cannot get in his car and cross the border because if he goes someplace unapproved Canada won't pay for it? CALLER: Oh no, he'd be hooked for it, and no follow-up care because he didn't do an approved procedure. RUSH: Approved procedure at an approved location, Canada single payer health care. CALLER: Yes, sir. When you've had cancer treatment, and I've had it, a half hour ride home is plenty. But four hours I can't imagine, that's going to affect his -- well, his shot. You know, your immune system is weakened by everything -- RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. CALLER: -- just the survival. That is not the only story. It happens to be right here on the page. The guy was not a person who abused his own health. He used to run the Detroit marathon. He is a kinesiologist, he works in the health system. RUSH: Who cares if he abused his own health? CALLER: Well, he didn't. RUSH: I know he didn't but -- CALLER: Right. RUSH: -- in my version of freedom, who cares if he did? Health care ought to be available. There's nobody that doesn't abuse their health. Some might say that doing all that jogging is an abusive treatment to joints and this sort of thing, who the hell knows? This is all absurd. This is just 1984ish absurd. CALLER: The worst absurdity, Rush, is -- and I've listened to you for a long time -- people do not understand, we have freedoms in Canada more than almost anyone in the world, but we have a lot of them just through cultural exchange with you people. They're here because they're here. You have these freedoms in law. You have the Constitution. You have all these things written down. No one in the world has these, and you're letting them get taken away. It drives us completely crazy. RUSH: Thank you, sir. And you know why it's happening? Because people think that letting go of their liberty is giving them security. CALLER: Well, we know the phrase about that, that you'll have neither. RUSH: Yeah. CALLER: I wish I had a better story to tell you. RUSH: It's a great story, it's a great story in the sense of it's instructive. Details are not happy for this guy, but, for crying out loud, one treatment is available, it isn't available in Canada, he has to be approved. In other words, to take a step, save his life, requires the government approving it. That is going to happen whenever there's a government-run health care system. I'll tell you where this is headed, I can make this story worse. At some point, somebody's going to say, "Look, stage four, tumor heart, tumor wherever, only a couple places will do it, we're not going to approve any treatment, it's a waste of money, we don't have the money for it. I mean, this guy's near the end of life anyway, give him a patch and that's it." That's where we're headed with this because everything's going to be based on money and how we can't afford this, can't afford that, and a lot of people are going to get a death sentence that today don't. Thanks Ed. Appreciate the call. A lot of gold mine calls on the EIB Network today. Bob in Red Wing, Minnesota, hello, sir, great to have you here. CALLER: Good talking to you, Rush. I was wondering if there's so many dealers being closed and so many plants in the United States being closed, these union workers must not be working, how are they being satisfied? Why are they so excited about Obama? RUSH: Well, some of them may not be. You're talking about the rank and file workers as opposed to leadership of the unions, which collect their dues and then pay it to Obama for their little seat at Obama's dinner table of power. But the UAW owns a majority stake in Chrysler, a minority stake in General Motors when it's all said and done and they'll have some funds to distribute to the pension and health care plan for the employees even those who are out of work as a result of this. The dealerships, yeah, you probably have some -- I couldn't speak to how many service departments at dealerships around the country are unionized. I just don't know. CALLER: There were quite a few of them here in Minnesota two years or so ago. RUSH: Well, I would have to think the reaction from them is one of two things: either outrage, anger, or Obama has to do it, we have to suck it up. Obama is trying to help and fix things. Some people are just blind with their support for the doofus. CALLER: Right. And then another question. I was wondering about these college kids that voted for Obama, and now he's spending all this money. I'm retired, but they're going to have to pay this money back now. RUSH: They haven't figured it out yet. They're not focused on that. They're focused on getting their $400,000 a year job and their first house. CALLER: Okay. RUSH: They're too young to figure that out. Wait 'til their tax rate hits 70% and then they might get mad. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Here's Joan in Fleetwood, Pennsylvania. Hi. CALLER: Hi, Mr. Rush. RUSH: Hi. CALLER: Thanks for taking the call and please keep up the good work. RUSH: Thank you, madam. CALLER: My question -- or I guess my comment -- would be: I was under the impression that when Mr. Obama was going to offer a health care reform plan that it was going to be on the same level that he and his family or the senators or congressmen have or representatives have along the same line as what they have. Is this plan along their lines? RUSH: Ha! Pfffft! Their plan... Imagine, their plan is this. CALLER: If it is, I'll sign up. (laughing) RUSH: You can't get this plan! CALLER: I figured that. RUSH: This plan is essentially whatever you need whenever you need it, at no cost. CALLER: Mmm-hmm. RUSH: And I don't remember Obama promising that. I know every politician says, "You ought to have the health care that we have in the US Senate or the US House of Representatives." They always say that because people love hearing members of Congress rip government. CALLER: Mmm-hmm. RUSH: But there's no way to provide it. I mean, you have 435 House members. You have a hundred senators. That's 535 people and you got 200 million people paying for it! CALLER: Well -- RUSH: If you can find 200 million people to pay for your health care, I guaran-damn-tee you it won't cost you a penny. CALLER: It sounds pretty good. Now, I'm a senior citizen. When my husband was alive, I had insurance. RUSH: You don't sound old enough to be a senior citizen. CALLER: Well, thank you very much. I'm a former Missourian. I'm a transplant. (garbled) RUSH: What part of Missouri? CALLER: St. Louis, Missouri. RUSH: St. Louis! CALLER: That was years ago, yes. RUSH: Okay. CALLER: But I pay $363 a month to carry my insurance because I need it. RUSH: Right. You do, as a seasoned citizen. You're at the point in life where you do need it. CALLER: Right. Now, if he taxes that, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be able to afford that. RUSH: Now, wait. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you employed? CALLER: No. RUSH: Well, then -- CALLER: Retired. RUSH: No, no. You're paying for it out of your pocket? CALLER: That's right. RUSH: You won't pay any see-able taxes on it. This is employee-provided benefits that they're going to tax as income but you're just paying for this out-of-pocket as though you're going to the grocery store every month right? CALLER: Right. RUSH: No, you won't pay any taxes on it. CALLER: Eventually you probably will. RUSH: Well... CALLER: I can't see -- RUSH: Depends on how you define a tax. I mean, depending on what Obama gets done here, your 363 a month might become 500. CALLER: Mmm-hmm. RUSH: And you could view that as a tax increase. Or your option to buy it might go away. CALLER: Well, that's probably what will happen. RUSH: That's probably it. Your option to buy it is going to go away because whatever plan you're in, they might opt out of it go into the government option which is what a loooot of insurance companies want to do, what a loooot of businesses want to do. Trust me on this, my friends. Do not doubt me. (sigh) I'm happy to be able to help her straighten that out, though. 14) 'Don't Tell Me It Can't Be Done' Humanevents.com http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=32323 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2273656/posts 6/17/2009 Newt Gingrich Last week, I had the pleasure of addressing the Senate-House Annual Republican Dinner. The MC for the evening was actor Jon Voight. Before he spoke, a video tribute for Voight was shown, including clips of him playing Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a movie. In one scene, Roosevelt is being told by his generals and advisors all the reasons why achieving victory in World War II was too hard. In response, Voight -- playing Roosevelt, who, remember, was confined to a wheelchair due to polio -- dramatically lifts himself up using the table and stabilizes himself on his non-functioning legs. He then stares down every shocked person in the room and says: "Don't tell me it can't be done." It occurred to me, sitting in the audience preparing to speak, that those seven words -- "Don't tell me it can't be done" -- should be the rallying cry for all Republicans (not to mention all Independents and Democrats who want a better future for America -- more on this idea later). I decided to make it the theme of my speech that night. Why? Because history shows us that it can be done. America has been here before. 1964, 1977 and 1993 -- in each of these years Republicans were gleefully pronounced dead by the news media. But in each case, they came back. On Inauguration Day 1977, Carter's Popularity Was Higher Than Obama's 1964 was followed by 1965, in which Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California. Two years later we began a 40-year period in which no overt liberal won the presidency. In 1977, Jimmy Carter's popularity on inauguration day was higher than Barack Obama's. But in 1980, Ronald Reagan won a decisive victory and changed the course of America. In 1993, they said Bill Clinton was creating a new, stronger Democratic Party. In 1994, the Democratic Party suffered its worst defeat in 40 years. So don't tell me it can't be done. "My Fellow Republicans. and Independents and Democrats Looking for a Better Future" History also shows us this: Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 and 1984 by appealing, not just to Republicans, but to independents and unhappy Democrats as well. In fact, it's hard to find a Reagan speech in which he doesn't speak to "my fellow Republicans, and those independents and Democrats who are looking for a better future." Like Reagan, we have to be inclusive, not exclusive. I'm happy Dick Cheney is a Republican. And I'm happy Colin Powell is a Republican But here's the key: Being inclusive doesn't mean going wobbly. It doesn't mean abandoning our principles. Key to Winning the Majority? Returning to First Principles Reagan called them "first principles." They are our bedrock beliefs. And in a center-right nation, they are the touchstones that will guide us back into the majority. Today I'm going to discuss some of these first principles and how they should guide us in the years ahead. We Must Strengthen Our Unique American Civilization If you go to the National Archives, you will find the words that are fundamental to America written in the Declaration of Independence: "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These words make us unique. We are the only country in history that says, "your personal rights come from God directly to you, the individual, and you loan the government sovereignty." That means if we truly believe that each of us is endowed by our creator with rights, then we have a deep moral obligation to save the unborn. It also means we have a deep moral obligation to care for them after they have been born. That means that when judges like Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor judge Americans by their ethnicity or their gender, it's wrong. It also means that rationing health care is wrong. No government bureaucrat has the right to take from you the rights that God gave you. Rationing health care is inevitably limiting your life at the whim of a bureaucrat and at the manipulation of a politician. Individual Rights and Individual Responsibilities Are At the Heart of the American System This commitment to the principle of the sovereignty of the individual can guide us in profound ways in the coming months and years. It means that we must have judges who understand that an America that has driven God from the public square will no longer be the America that has extended freedom and prosperity for 400 years. It means understanding that individual rights and responsibilities are at the heart of our system, that there are no quotas and no group identities in the American system. And it means understanding that at Jamestown, our first permanent settlement, they established the principle "if you will not work you will not eat" -- not for the poor but for the aristocrats who thought they could buy their way out of work. The work ethic was at the heart of our welfare reform in 1996. It is the most successful conservative reform in modern times. We Must Defend America Against Our Enemies More than any other of its responsibilities, government's highest priority must be to defend America against those who would do us harm. Tragically, under the Obama Administration, we have fallen back into the utopian fantasies and self deception of the 1977 Carter Administration and the 1993 Clinton Administration. Again and again the legalisms and self deceptions of treating enemies as criminals under these administrations led to more and more disastrous results. Today, many of the same civil libertarians who believe terrorists deserve Miranda warnings and civilian trials are in the Obama Justice Department. It's amazing how many of them come from law firms which were eagerly giving pro bono representation to alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. By 3-to-1, Americans Believe We Are Safer with Terrorists at Guantanamo Bay But Americans know better than to accept utopianism and self-deception in our national security policy. Nowhere was this more clear than in the contrast between President Obama's and former Vice President Cheney's back-to-back speeches on Guantanamo Bay a few weeks ago. Vice President Cheney had a fairly simple message: The reason we have Guantanamo Bay is that we have people there who want to kill us. They are called terrorists. It's good not to have terrorists anywhere near us because it makes it harder for them to kill us. President Obama, on the other hand, used his considerable oratorical gifts to hide from these fundamental facts. He spoke a lot of words that meant very little and managed to convey the impression that he didn't understand the nature of the men being detained at Guantanamo. The average American listened to Vice President Cheney and President Obama and understood that one speaker got it and the other one didn't. By 3-to-1, the American people believe that we are safer with prisoners in Guantanamo Bay than in America. Economic Freedom Leads to Jobs and Prosperity Another first principle we must keep in mind while building a center-right majority is that economic freedom is necessary to building a productive America with the best jobs and greatest prosperity in the world. Here our first principles are particularly clear about the disastrous path our country is on: We will not have new jobs when bureaucrats micromanage companies. We will not have prosperity when politicians dominate the economy. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are not substitutes for a sound market economy. And Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are not replacements for Warren Buffet and Bill Gates We Will Not Have Prosperity When Politicians Dominate the Economy So how do we get back to economic growth? Here, as well, our first principles lead the way: High taxes kill jobs and growth. Low taxes encourage jobs and growth Instead of spending $787 billion to reward Democratic interest groups, an effective economic stimulus would get the money to the people that work and the businesses that hire them in the form of lower taxes. - If we had a two-year, 50% reduction in the Social Security and Medicare tax for both the employee and the employer, we would have an extraordinary explosion of small business. - If we want to compete with China for jobs, we should match the Chinese on capital gains. Their rate is zero. - If we want to compete for profitable businesses creating good jobs, we should adopt the Irish tax rate of 12.5 percent for corporations. - If we want to build up capital for investments permanently, we should abolish the death tax. For American Jobs and Prosperity We Need an American Energy Policy Beyond tax policy, for American jobs and prosperity we need an American energy policy. We need a policy that emphasizes the energy we have in America -- from coal and natural gas to wind and solar -- and recognizes that the problem isn't a lack of resources or innovation. The problem is government. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal and the global leader in technical and scientific innovation. But both these advantages are weakened by government policies that favor imports over American energy. If We Are Endowed by Our Creator with Rights, Then Every Child Deserves to Learn We also need to educate our children in order to have future jobs and prosperity. Now is a time to be bold. If we truly believe that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, then every child deserves to learn. We should take President Obama up on his commitment to unlimited charter schools. And we should go much further. Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander supports giving low income kids the chance to go to a better school through a proposal called Pell Grants for Kids. We should welcome the debate about why Pell Grants are good for after 12, but not good for K-12. "We Carry the Message They Are Waiting For" At the 1976 Republican convention, having lost the nomination for president, Ronald Reagan was invited by President Ford to say a few words. This is how he closed: "Better than we have ever done before, we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been, but we carry the message they are waiting for." Reagan's advice is as good today as it was in 1976. We believe in individual human freedom. We believe in protecting American civilization. We believe that the future of America is one of prosperity for our children and grandchildren. Millions of Americans share these beliefs. They're ready to hear our message. Don't tell me it can't be done. 15) What's The Big Hurry? Townhall.com http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidHarsanyi/2009/06/17/whats_the_big_hurry http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2273532/posts June 17, 2009 David Harsanyi Weren't we promised some methodical and deliberate governance from President Barack Obama? What happened? The president claims that we must pass a government-run health insurance -- possibly the most wide-ranging and intricate government undertaking in decades -- yesterday, or a "ticking time bomb" will explode. If all this terrifying talk sounds familiar, it's because the president applies the same fear-infused vocabulary to nearly all his hard-to-defend policy positions. You'll remember the stimulus plan had to be passed without a second's delay, or we would see 8.7 percent unemployment. We're almost at 10. A commonly utilized Obama straw man states that "the cost of inaction" is unacceptable. "Action," naturally, translates into whatever policy Obama happens to be peddling at the time. When it comes to health insurance, though, there are still reactionaries. Take the folks at the American Medical Association, who have the impudence to claim that "reform" comes with the potential to destroy their industry and your choice. "The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers," says an AMA statement. "The corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers." Guess what? That's the point. A government-run public option can lose money perpetually. With the fiscal power of coerced taxpayers behind it, the public option would crowd out the private sector and demolish any competitive market -- which is the only genuine way to bring down costs and keep the level of medical care high. The Ted Kennedy-Chris Dodd Senate draft bill almost certainly would pave the way for single-payer, government insurance. And despite his protestations, Obama was once a supporter of a single-payer plan. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office, which has been a reliable pain in the butt for the administration with all its irritating "figures," contends that the bill would cost a trillion dollars. The CBO claims that even with the plan in place, 36 million people would remain uninsured in 2017. (Let's momentarily ignore the fact that the majority of the "uninsured" tally consists of the temporarily uninsured and those simply unwillingly to pay for insurance.) Despite these concerns, Obama continues to claim the ability to "control" costs and expand coverage without, miraculously enough, adding to the deficit. Talk about a "ticking time bomb." Doesn't a radical overhaul of one-sixth of the entire economy deserve more than "now! now! now!"? There's a way to find out. As writer Virginia Postrel points out, we already have Medicare, a massive single-payer, government-run program and a "perfect environment for experimentation." "If more-efficient government management can slash health-care costs by addressing all these problems," wrote Postrel, " why not start with Medicare? Let's see what 'better management' looks like applied to Medicare before we roll it out to the rest of the country." As Postrel probably already knows, the effort to empower government with control of medical care is ideologically driven, making it impervious to experimentation. Socializing medicine is the grand prize for the left. Once all the recent spending, all those deficits and the failed "stimulus" begin to catch up with Congress and the president, more reactionaries surely will emerge. Once the White House honeymoon ends and people start posing some prickly queries, it's going to get even harder. So that's the rush. 16) Barack Obama: Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places Townhall.com http://ktkz.townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2009/06/17/barack_obama_looking_for_love_in_all_the_wrong_places http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2273390/posts June 17, 2009 Ben Shapiro President Barack Obama's ego is like an agitated puppy: it requires constant attention and a good deal of petting. Fortunately for Obama, world leaders recognize his insecurities and cater to them. Unfortunately for America, world leaders have realized that by catering to those insecurities, they can keep the president distracted just long enough to do what they want. The president is like an unattractive high school girl desperately looking for a date to the prom: Any boor can take her for a few compliments. It's only when she arrives home the next morning, deflowered, that she realizes she's been suckered. While the world community declaims Obama as a global hero, they ignore his wishes and do precisely what they want; while Obama savors the sickly sweet praise, he ignores their malfeasance. There's only one problem: He's going to feel used in the morning. When Obama was elected, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Obama a personal letter of congratulations. In March, Syrian President Bashar Assad acclaimed Obama as a "man of his word." On June 10, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt praised Obama as "someone who differs from other presidents of the United States." Palestinian terror group Hamas trumpeted Obama's election as a "historic victory for the world." King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia called Obama "a distinguished man who deserves to be in this position." President Hu of China described Obama's election as the beginning of a "new historic era." Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia said Obama was "an open, sincere person." The Europeans unanimously hailed Obama as a global leader and a champion of fairness. For his part, Obama showers friendliness upon these sycophants. Obama has repeatedly stated that he wishes to negotiate with Iran, and he has clearly implied that military action against Iran is off the table; he has already blessed Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program and he refuses to OK sanctions against Iran even in the aftermath of the ayatollahs' crackdown on the Iranian population. Obama has elevated terror sponsor and Lebanon-rapist Syria to high international rank, with envoy George Mitchell declaring that Syria has "an integral role to play in reaching comprehensive peace." Obama deigned to rest his holy presence on stage in Cairo, Egypt, granting that despotic regime a legitimacy it does not deserve. Anti-Semite extraordinaire Jimmy Carter has met repeatedly with Hamas -- and with Obama, presumably carrying Hamas' handwritten instructions. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have already feted China for its role in propping up the U.S. economy. Obama famously "reset" relations with Russia. And Obama kowtowed to the Europeans, stating that Americans failed to respect their "leading role in the world." For his troubles, Obama has gotten a stocking chockfull of coal. Iran's military-directed nuclear program continues apace; the Iranians recently selected/elected President Ahmadinejad again, despite Obama's direct appeals to the Iranian people. Syria continues to support Hezbollah. Egypt announced this week that it would never accept the existence of the State of Israel. Hamas announced that they would not accept any of Israel's positions. China is supporting the North Korean regime despite North Korea's threats of nuclear war. Russia is undermining Eastern European security. And the Europeans have refused to help our efforts in Afghanistan. We have a president who is "loved" and a country that is held to international scorn. Does anyone miss a time when America was respected and our president disliked? Machiavelli asked whether it was more important for a prince to be loved or respected. "(M)en loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince," wrote Machiavelli, "a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavor only to avoid hatred, as is noted." When a prince -- or a world leader -- endeavors to be loved rather than feared, he falls into the trap of attempting to please everyone. That is Obama to a T. He is more interested in applause than freedom or American security. Just because the world community mouths support for Obama doesn't mean they'll stand behind America. Or perhaps they will stand behind America -- in order to plunge a knife deep between our shoulder blades. Either way, Obama doesn't truly care, as long as the world keeps telling him how wonderful he is. 17) Change People Are Starting To No Longer Believe In Townhall.com http://townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2009/06/18/change_people_are_starting_to_no_longer_believe_in http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2274389/posts June 18, 2009 Matt Towery It's finally starting to happen. For months, I've irritated many conservatives by telling them that, like it or not, Barack Obama had high approval ratings, and that most Americans were so enamored with the president that there was no use in attacking him yet. But one thing I was sure of was that eventually the overly liberal House and some of the Senate's most senior Democrats from the Northeast would transform many of Obama's ideas into proposals so bewildering and threatening that many of the independent swing voters who propelled Obama to victory would start to lose confidence in the new details of the "change-you-can-believe-in" program. Sure enough, bit by bit, much of the president's agenda is starting to come apart like a cheap trailer in a tornado. Consider healthcare reform. I recall in the Democratic presidential primary debates that candidate Obama suggested a slower pace and perhaps less ambition in trying to put the brake on runaway healthcare costs; slower, at least, than Hillary Clinton's more aggressive "universal healthcare" proposal. At one point Obama said that step one would be to address the medical needs of America's children. It was only after Obama was elected that his own more aggressive approach started to emerge. And even then the most forceful and comprehensive proposals seemed to surface not in the White House, but in the House and in Edward Kennedy's committee in the Senate. (Most observers believe any bill with a realistic chance to become law will probably come out of another Senate Committee -- Finance.) Regardless, the Congressional Budget Office says the price of Democratic reform to healthcare would be staggering. Beyond that, more and more Americans appear to be having serious misgivings about healthcare being under the exclusive or predominant control of the same folks that bring you the U.S. Postal Service (which is itself struggling mightily with disorganization and threatened with having to cut services). Then there's the fight against "climate change." Yes, many have noticed that with much of the northern United States having endured a particularly frosty winter this past year, the term "global warming" is being discarded like last week's magazine. And yes, the House has again tried to push through a bill to limit carbon emissions by forcing energy producers -- and ultimately consumers -- to pay for costly permits to produce greenhouse gasses, and to limit the market for such permits. Yet now the whole concept has been watered down. The so-called "cap-and-trade" permits probably won't go into effect for years, and will likely be phased in even then. And there's good reason to believe that there may be enough opposition among some moderate Democrats in the Senate to stall or even kill the legislation outright. As for another round of stimulus money, you can forget it. Public opinion polls tell us that the federal debt being amassed is scaring people; so much so that polls also say that Americans now trust the clueless, leaderless GOP on economic and fiscal issues more than they do the Democrats. President Obama himself remains popular. The latest RealClearPolitics average of his approval ratings is holding around 60 percent. But both his approval and disapproval ratings are moving slowly toward the middle. I believe the president is being weighed down a bit by the over-actions of the Democratic Congress. They seemed to have taken many of his ideas and disappeared with them somewhere way beyond the left-field foul line. And the public has too little attention to always properly distinguish between Obama's and the Congress's words and actions. Remaining is what may be the most pernicious White House proposal of all -- to tax overseas revenue of corporations as soon as they are recognized in whatever foreign country they may be earned in. This could result in whole corporations moving their headquarters out of the United States. Microsoft has already dropped a hint that it might. Unfortunately for these companies, this proposal hasn't been widely canvassed in media yet, probably in part because it's complicated and in part because Obama has done an effective job of branding many of these multinational companies as "tax dodgers." What a cruel irony if most of the Democrats' policy proposals that could potentially retard economic growth were to fall apart this summer, only to have a potentially devastating new tax trip us back into recession because no one understood or cared about the issue enough to combat it. 18) Vatican Newspaper Editor Digs Deeper Hole Inside Catholic http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6256&Itemid=48 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2274332/posts June 19, 2009 Deal Hudson In an interview published at National Review Online, Gian Maria Vian, editor of L'Osservatore Romano, responded to his critics. Vian makes it clear that he doesn't have a high opinion of writers, like me, who have taken him to task for his treatment of President Barack Obama: I think that if American Catholics could read L'Osservatore Romano every day, and did not trust wire reports -- although some of the agency writers are very good . . . but getting information from bloggers is like going to the bar where everyone has his own opinion (emphasis added). Well, let's all raise our glasses, take a stiff drink, and look at what Vian had to say for himself. First of all, Vian seems impressed with the longtime relationship of his family (going back three generations) to the Vatican newspaper, but also seems unmindful about his responsibilities to the Church as editor of L'Osservatore Romano. Regarding his comment to an Italian newspaper that he did not believe Obama was "pro-abortion," he explained: I made that statement in an interview to an Italian journalist of Il Riformista who called me on the day the president was at Notre Dame for the controversial ceremony of the conferring of the law degree honoris causa. I was in Barcelona; I gave the interview over the phone and based my observation primarily on the speech President Obama gave on that occasion -- a speech which demonstrated openness. In this sense, I said that he didn't seem a pro-abortion president. "He didn't seem a pro-abortion president," based upon a single speech. Vian ignored everything Obama did as a state senator and as a U.S. senator; what he has said over his entire political career about support for abortion-on-demand, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and FOCA; and, finally, what Obama has already done as president, including ending the Mexico City policy, ending conscience protection for medical care workers, and appointing Catholic pro-aborts to significant administration positions. When pressed about Obama's record by the interviewer, Delia Gallagher (who did a great job), Vian resorted to the excuse that he did the interview "on the fly" and that he hopes Obama will change: I hope that he understands that a politics of pro-life is good politics, not because it is religious, not because it is Catholic, but because it is human. This is what the Church repeatedly says, and in particular, Pope Benedict XVI. The appeal to natural law is important because it is not based on religious principles; it is based on human principles which can be agreed on by all. Vian and I are in complete agreement on that. But I would ask him a simple question: "Why does Obama need to change if he is already not pro-abortion?" Gallagher then asked Vian about his newspaper's praise of Obama's first 100 days. Vian defended what the paper had to say, saying it mirrors his personal opinion, and then added: I realize that Obama is much more pro-choice than McCain, who was his adversary, but Obama won, and let's hope that that his actions on these themes are less radical than they have been before the elections. At least that is the case so far. "Much more pro-choice than McCain"? Apart from McCain's position on fetal stem cell research, there is really nothing to criticize in McCain's voting record on abortion -- certainly nothing to justify the label "pro-choice." But here is Vian's most muddled statement of all, and the one most disconnected from the reality of American politics and its relation to the Church. Gallagher asked Vian if his newspaper has been publishing articles undercutting the position of the U.S. bishops. No. In our international religious news we systematically support the position of the U.S. bishops. I said very clearly that to consider L'Osservatore Romano as distant or not supportive of the U.S. Bishops' Conference is false, it is a game played by those who want only to use our paper to paint a picture of divided Catholics. . . . L'Osservatore Romano has never distanced itself from the bishops. In fact, after the comments which appeared primarily on the Internet from the U.S., we reiterated that the paper is absolutely at the side of the American bishops and that their position cannot be considered a political stance. Gallagher then asked Vian what he meant by "a political stance?" Well, they say that the conference, or at least the presidency of the U.S. Bishops' Conference, has a conservative Republican line -- no. On questions such as the defense of life the bishops speak in the same way to Republicans as they do to Democrats (emphasis added). I take it that Vian was saying that "they," meaning unnamed Internet bloggers, are arguing that the USCCB and Francis Cardinal George, the president of the USCCB, have a "conservative Republican line." Pardon me, but I need another drink from the bar to ponder that one. Finally, it must be difficult for Vian to understand that defending the Church's teaching on abortion in the United States may appear merely "political" to him, but it's a Catholic obligation. What I think Vian is struggling to describe is this: On the abortion issue, the Republican Party is closer to the teaching of the Catholic Church than the Democrats. Is that so hard for Vian to say? Yes, this point has been made endlessly -- not about either the USCCB or Cardinal George, who would not want to be labeled a Republican, but in terms of specific documents, including the Catechism and the encyclicals of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (not to mention a few documents from the bishops' conference). Once again, Gian Maria Vian has attempted to clear the air regarding articles in the Vatican newspaper, as well as his own quoted comments, about Obama and abortion. He has succeeded only in demonstrating that he is unaware of his own responsibility as editor of L'Osservatore Romano and badly out of touch with the various intersections of the Church and politics in the United States. 19) '45 Million Americans' -- Who Are Those Guys? Townhall.com http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2009/06/18/45_million_americans_--_who_are_those_guys http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2274315/posts June 18, 2009 Larry Elder About 45 million Americans lack health care insurance. Or do they? A pro-"universal health care" television host recently cited this widely accepted "fact." The number is bogus. Here's the skinny. Start with the math. We have 300 million Americans. Subtract the 45 million -- 15 percent of us -- with no health insurance. That leaves 255 million Americans, or 85 percent, with it. And the insurance is lousy, right? Not according to a 2006 ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey. It found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with the quality of their own health care. Nearly half of the 45 million fall in the category of my 26-year-old nephew. He smokes cigarettes, dates, eats out, goes to movies and, like all young people, lives through his cell phone. With a slight change in priorities, he could afford health insurance, the cost of which at his age and health starts at about $100 a month. Take a look at a Reason Foundation video of interviews with a bunch of non-health-insured 20-somethings. These Gen Xers copped to dropping money on clothes, booze, nightlife, the latest tech gizmos and other things of interest to them. With a change in priorities, these young folks -- far more representative of those without insurance than the forlorn husband and wife sitting on a porch swing -- could both afford and qualify for health insurance. They simply consider it a low priority. Millions more can access health care -- through SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program), Medicaid or other government programs. But for whatever reason, 11 million people simply refuse to take advantage of them. Several million other Americans who want insurance do, indeed, go without it -- for a time. Many are, however, between jobs, and most -- at some point -- will find employment that either offers health insurance or pays enough so that they can buy it. Millions more work at companies that offer health insurance, and for a few dollars out of every paycheck, they could add family members. They choose not to. What about criminals without insurance? More than 2 million Americans -- with access to health care, by the way -- use jail, prison or penitentiary mailing addresses. And for every one behind bars, how many live among us who survive by theft, drug dealing, prostitution or some similar career path? Taxpayer health insurance for them, too? So now we're down to the Americans without health insurance on a persistent, long-term basis. This is approximately 10-15 million, a big number to be sure. But does this warrant a government takeover of the entire health care system? Lacking health care insurance is not the same as lacking health care . By law, most emergency rooms must provide health care -- to both legals and illegals. Yes, they stand in line, but no health insurance does not equal no health care. Government (aka taxpayers) already pays half of our health care dollar, with programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and other federal and state plans. The stated goals are accessibility and affordability. Congress passed Medicare in 1965. In the 20 years before the program's inception, the cost of a day in a hospital increased threefold. In the 20 years following Medicare, a day in a hospital increased eightfold -- substantially higher than inflation over that period. Because of cost controls on government plans, providers increased the cost on everybody else. So here's the question. Do we allow a complete government takeover of the section of health care it doesn't already run, for 10-15 million or so without health insurance on a persistent basis? Again, 255 million Americans already have it. Many millions more could get it if they wanted to. And 89 percent of Americans are satisfied with the care they now receive. What to do? Unleash the free market. Allow greater competition among health care providers. Decrease costly regulations that increase the price tag. Enable consumers to purchase insurance plans across state lines. Allow non-government-licensed paraprofessionals and others -- currently prevented by law from offering any medical services -- to provide low-cost care. What about poor care and negligence? We have laws against force and fraud, as well as a common-law duty of care. That's why God created lawyers. (Just give us "loser pays.") What about those who cannot afford it? What about those with pre-existing illnesses whose insurance applications carriers turned down? What's wrong with charity -- people helping people? America remains the most generous nation on the face of the earth. We donate more of our time and money than countries like England, Germany and Japan. During the Great Depression, before the New Deal, charitable giving skyrocketed. After the New Deal, charitable giving continued, but not at nearly the same rate. People expected government to address the problem, and taxpayers felt they gave at the office. We can provide such "universal" coverage at a "low cost" -- through rationing. That means long lines, lower quality and less innovation for services that Americans currently take for granted. Economists call it T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. 20) Reading Miranda Rights To Terrorists Is 'Crazy' And 'Stupid,' Say GOP Congressmen CNSNews.com http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49738 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2274251/posts June 18, 2009 Bridget Miller & Edwin Mora The Justice Department confirmed last week that FBI agents in Afghanistan are reading Miranda warnings to suspected terrorists captured there, a practice that Republican congressmen this week branded as "crazy" and "stupid." Miranda warnings were mandated by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said domestic law enforcement agencies must inform criminal suspects arrested in the United States of their rights under the 5th Amendment. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," says the typical Miranda warning. "You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?" The Obama administration's decision to make this statement to terror suspects captured on the battlefield in a foreign country has sparked outrage among several Republicans Congress who spoke with CNSNews.com. It also contradicts what President Barack Obama said in March, when he indicated that Miranda rights did not apply to terror suspects captured overseas. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), as first reported in The Weekly Standard, said he was recently in Afghanistan and personally witnessed FBI agents reading the Miranda warning to captured combatants. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it," said Rogers. "We're still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative." "Anytime that you offer confusion in that environment that's already chaotic and confusing enough, you jeopardize a soldier's life," said Rogers. On Capitol Hill, Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.) agreed with Rogers and told CNSNews.com: "I think it's the craziest idea I've ever heard in my life, and I think my constituents at home in Arkansas are beyond shock. There's just no rhyme or reason for it -- it makes no sense at all. We have so many guys that are out there risking their lives, trying to do the best they can, and then to try to put this added burden on them at a time when you're at war -- like I said it's crazy. It's beyond belief." Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) also disagreed with the policy of reading the Miranda warning to captured enemy fighters. "I think it's a terrible, it's a terrible idea. They're not American citizens, for starters. They're combating-foreigners that are against us in every way. They don't even wear the uniform, most of them. They're terrorists. And they should not have the same privileges as the citizens of the United States. That's where I stand," Johnson told CNSNews.com. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) strongly disapproved of giving these rights to detainees saying, "I think it's outrageous. They're not criminal defendants, and if that's the way this administration is heading, I think it's a terrible direction." "They're not criminal defendants, they're enemies of war captured on the battlefield, and they need to be treated as such," said McCaul. "What we're doing is going back to the Clinton years and going through the courts and making criminal defendants, reading them Miranda rights, they're asking for lawyers over in Afghanistan on the battlefield. . Whether they're down in Guantanamo, I saw Khalid Sheik Mohammad down there. He's an enemy of the United States, an enemy of war. And the idea of giving them Constitutional rights, bringing them into the United States and giving them Constitutional rights is just outrageous. To extend that to the battlefield now, where they're being captured in a time of war, and force our soldiers to give them Miranda rights, we've never seen this in the history of this country, and it's a bad, dangerous precedent to go down." Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), whose nickname on Capitol Hill is "Judge" for having served criminal district judge for 20 years prior to entering Congress, said that a terrorist act should be treated differently than a DUI. "I spent 20 years as a criminal district judge, and I firmly believe that they [captured terrorists] are not entitled to have Miranda rights. Their rights are defined in other ways, they are not defined by our Constitution," said Carter. "They are treating these people as if they are committing a crime inside the United States, and not as warriors against our soldiers," Carter told CNSNews.com. "And yet they are warriors against our military." Rep. Robert A. Brady (D-Pa.) said he was not familiar with the new policy and therefore could not comment. "I haven't seen that -- if I see it, I can comment on it, but I don't know anything about it," he told CNSNews.com. President Barack Obama was interviewed on CBS's 60 Minutes on March 22. During that interview he was asked about the captured terror suspects being held in Guantanamo Bay. Obama said: "The whole premise of Guantanamo, promoted by Vice President Cheney, was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not." 21) After Obama Fails American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/after_obama_fails.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2274248/posts June 18, 2009 George Joyce A failed presidency for Barack Obama could turn into liberalism's worst nightmare. Barely six months into his term, the 44th president has succeeded in generating the most widespread and serious discussion of secession since the Civil War. Despite what Newsweek's Evan Thomas may claim, Obama is not the "God" who will bring us together but the autocratic sponsor of an overbearing, oppressive leviathan from which a growing number of Americans are seeking refuge. That refuge, according to author Paul Starobin, will come in the form of several regional republics that reflect the diverse character of Americans no longer bound in any meaningful way by our unrecognizable Federal government. In a riveting exploration of America 's coming breakup, Starobin writes in a recent Wall Street Journal article: "Picture an America that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Washington autocracy but, in freewheeling style, by an assemblage of largely autonomous regional republics reflecting the eclectic economic and cultural character of the society." Starobin chronicles in fascinating detail the historical basis for America 's future balkanization. He provides a snapshot of today's most viable and vocal secessionist organizations. Starobin goes on to argue that the overbearing and stifling "Obama planners and their ilk" will probably be doomed to fail in a land replete with the Jeffersonian impulse of radical self-determination. Obama's extreme power grab, in other words, will cause a correspondingly extreme backlash: "All of this adds up to a federal power grab that might make even FDR's New Dealers blush. But that's just the point: Not surprisingly, a lot of folks in the land of Jefferson are taking a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted citizenry yet more dependent on an already immense federal power. The backlash, already under way, is a prime stimulus for a neo-secessionist movement, the most extreme manifestation of a broader push for some form of devolution." By focusing most of his attention on how big unwieldy entities devolve into creative little ones, Starobin's analysis misses however the more direct personal role Barack Obama himself has played in fracturing America. Back in March of last year for example New York Times columnist Roger Cohen told his audience he could "understand the rage" of Obama's former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Without missing a beat Cohen then concluded in his essay that the "clamoring now in the United States for a presidency that uplifts rather than demeans is a reflection of the intellectual desert of the Bush years." Has Barack Obama's been an "uplifting" presidency? Mr. Obama knew full well that his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, dismissed the test results of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, entitled to promotion but denied because they were of the wrong race. Surely her decision is demeaning to both white males and to those who study diligently for exams. Did the black firefighters feel uplifted or demeaned when Sotomayor ruled in their favor? Was the New Haven firehouse more unified or more divided after Sotomayor's ruling? Was Obama's Sotomayor choice uplifting or demeaning? Indeed, from the Sotomayor pick and anti-business rhetoric to the endless lecturing about America 's sins, Mr. Obama is starting to sound a lot like his former pastor. To be sure Obama is not as grating and shrill as Mr. Wright but closer to something more like Jeremiah-lite. In other words, Mr. Obama's strategy seems to be to convince Americans to drink his socialist tonic out of sheer guilt. I'm not sure what is so inspiring about all of this. Maybe this is why Starobin claims to be witnessing a lot of neo-secessionist activity. Wouldn't a new American devolution however be a liberal's worst nightmare? Beyond the psychosis most liberals would have to endure at the thought of losing any kind of control, the prospect of vibrant, happy, and successful conservative republics in places like Texas, South Carolina or Utah would be an inescapable spotlight forever exposing the failure of liberal ideology in a Republic of California. But this brings up another problem. When the framers of the American Constitution favored a multi-state solution to the problem of centralized tyranny they argued that an additional benefit would be that each state could become a unique laboratory displaying the policy successes and failures to its neighbors. If the Republic of Texas chooses a classics curriculum for its youngsters, celebrates the family and tradition in its media, encourages personal responsibility in lieu of a nanny state, rewards citizens on the basis of merit, is tough on criminals, sends its politicians home after brief excursions to the capitol, is business friendly and generally leaves its citizens alone, how are those controlling the politically liberal Republics like California going to react? What most liberals fail to understand is that their leisurely dabbling in progressive politics and moral equivalency is made possible by the existence of accumulated conservative moral capital. Remove the conservative anchor and progressive societies become dangerously seasick. I guess the lesson here is that liberals need conservatives more than conservatives need liberals (although society needs them on occasion). There is much in progressive ideology that simply seeks to undermine -- a strange method of establishing an identity. While reading "A Little History of the World" to my kids the other day I came across an interesting observation by the author, E.H. Gombrich: "Because the Egyptians were so wise and so powerful their empire lasted for a very long time. Longer than any empire the world has ever known: nearly three thousand years. And they took just as much care of their corpses, when they preserved them from rotting away, in preserving all their ancient traditions over the centuries. Their priests made quite sure that no son did anything his father had not done before him. To them, everything old was sacred." When Obama fails it will be because he's convinced enough Americans to tire, as he has, of what used to be known as "America." Imagine what would have happened in Egypt had their priests adopted "liberation theology" rather than the standard of their fathers. A mere footnote in the pages of history. 22) Palin Proves Conservatives Can Fight Pop Culture And Win Human Events http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32362 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2275094/posts 6/19/2009 Gary Bauer In the Age of Obama, many conservatives are consoling themselves with this thought: Conservatism wins on the issues. Polls show majorities of Americans want less government and fewer and lower taxes; they want leaders who will stand up to our enemies; they are skeptical about the science of global warming; they want public policy to show respect for human life at all stages, and, yes, most Americans still believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. A Gallup poll this week showed 40 percent of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, while just 21 percent self identify as liberal. Though conservative values remain popular among Americans overall, they have never been embraced by the popular culture. Hollywood, the music industry, sports and the fashion world are all overwhelmingly liberal. In these sectors of American society, conservative positions almost always lose. These realities make the recent Sarah Palin-David Letterman dust-up quite interesting. For decades conservatives have engaged the popular culture at their peril. Whenever conservatives pushed back against the excesses of the pop culture, they risked getting labeled bigoted, ignorant or, worst of all, prudish. But Sarah Palin has proved that conservatives can fight the pop culture and win. That's because while many Americans consume the entertainment of people like David Letterman, they embrace the values of people like Sarah Palin. The controversy surrounds comments made more than a week ago by the "Late Show" host. Letterman joked that Palin, who was in New York City to attend an autism event, had bought makeup from Bloomingdale's to update her "slutty flight attendant" look. He later added that Palin had attended a New York Yankees baseball game, and that during the seventh inning stretch Palin's daughter had been "knocked up" by Yankees' libidinous third baseman Alex Rodriguez. Letterman claims he was referring to Palin's 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, but only Palin's 14-year-old daughter, Willow, attended the game with her mother. So Letterman ended up joking about statutory rape. Initially, Letterman did not apologize. While jokes that sexualize kids are "crude, sexist, perverted," as Palin stated in response to Letterman, they have sadly become a comedic staple. Watch the most popular comedians and you'll find many jokes are intended to humiliate, demean and tear down. Throw in some disgusting sexual references and you have a perfect recipe for big laughs in today's popular culture. And if the target of the comedian's demeaning sexual jokes is a conservative politician, so much the better. There is an obvious double standard. What would have happened had Letterman made the same joke about Barack Obama and his family? We know. Letterman would have been forced into early retirement, and perhaps prosecuted under some "hate crimes" statute. Letterman then offered a snarky non-apology apology in which he insisted he had meant to suggest that Bristol, not Willow, had been "knocked up" by A-Rod. While there is a significant legal difference, only according to our cultural elites could the addition of four years transform a beyond-the-pale insinuation into an acceptable punch-line. The target of his cruel insinuations remained a young girl who, through no fault of her own, is the daughter of a political figure. Finally, after a week, Letterman offered something closer to a legitimate apology, which Palin graciously accepted. I doubt Letterman would have apologized had he not been forced to do so. But his jokes caused a huge backlash among his viewers, some of whom formed a campaign to urge CBS to fire him. Viewers were so irate that one "Late Show" advertiser pulled its sponsorship. Letterman was slammed by women's groups across the ideological spectrum. Even the National Organization for Women denounced him for "snicker[ing] about men having sex with teenage girls (or women) less than half their age." Despite the strong backlash, some conservatives argued that Palin was wrong to call out Letterman for his outrageous remarks. One commentator predicted that critiques of Letterman would lead to a form of censorship, while a former GOP advisor said going after Letterman made Republicans look small, and insisted the entire episode was a "win-win for Letterman." Letterman has enjoyed a temporary ratings boost, but there's deeper meaning in the incident. The cultural left lampoons Palin because her values and life are completely foreign to them. They find it bizarre that she hunts, prays and says things like "you betcha.'" They can't fathom that she brought a child with Down syndrome to term and that she didn't pressure her daughter into aborting an unexpected pregnancy. Letterman may not know anyone who would vote for Palin or a family that looks like hers. But his Palin joke backfired in part because scores of millions of Americans are living lives that more closely resemble Palin's life than Letterman's. Like Palin, they pray in churches, hunt and fish and raise imperfect families with unconditional love. They are more than uneasy about the culture's sexualization of children and its infantilization of adults. The cultural left mocks Palin's values, but its taunts often fail to gain traction, because Palin's politics and principles are much more main-stream than those of her critics. Sarah Palin is a false target for the popular culture. It can't resist the temptation to ridicule and lampoon her, but she offers too much common sense and inspiration to make for good jokes. In the Age of Obama, pop culture elites may be excused for their over-the-top bashing of conservatives. Liberals have always controlled the popular culture, and now they control government too. They probably assume most of the country has shifted leftward and come round to their view of the world. But it hasn't. Just ask David Letterman. 23) Dueling Health Care Plans Unveiled HumanEvents.com http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32394 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2277195/posts 6/22/2009 Connie Hair House Democrats on Friday finally unveiled their long-awaited 852-page health care “reform” legislation (pdf) that engineers a government takeover of medicine. The bill is a staggeringly expensive bureaucratic nightmare that Democrats will try to defend in a series of hearings beginning this week. As details of this leviathan bill begin to emerge, what is becoming increasingly clear is this plan, if passed, will cost American jobs. Democrats would use the cost of a business’ annual payroll to define whether or not a small business is subject to a new eight percent federal tax. Only those with less than 10 employees on average would be spared the onerous new tax. Subjecting these small businesses who employ 47.3 million people and provide $1.7 trillion in wages annually to the Democrats’ new tax will place these jobs and wages at risk. Additional employer mandates that will require some small businesses to offer employee coverage would cost another 4.7 million jobs according to a model from the President’s own economic advisors. The House Democrats’ plan also places mandates on every individual American citizen to buy health insurance or pay a hefty penalty to Washington equal to almost two percent of their annual income. Of course, if you can’t afford to pay for the coverage, you would be forced into the government-run system that will make health care more expensive and ration care based on age, cost and survivability rates. The government system also puts bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions, like putting the DMV in charge of your medical decisions. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has admitted that their health care plan would be financed by raising taxes. There have been reports of a whole slew of new taxes on individuals being considered, from a national sales tax to additional taxes on cigarettes, new taxes on sodas, and raising taxes on everyone making more than $200,000 a year. According to a Lewin Group study published earlier this year, a similar Democrat plan would force more than 100 million Americans out of their current health coverage and into the government system. The Congressional Budget Office issued a report last week on the similar plan authored by Senate Democrats that would force at least 23 million people out of their private health care coverage. According to news reports, even the White House has admitted that statements made by the President promising you can keep your current health care coverage if you like it shouldn’t be taken literally. Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the House Republican leader, talked Friday about the Democrat plan. “This plan is nothing less than a government takeover of health care, and families and small businesses who are already footing the bill for Washington’s reckless spending binge will not support it,” Boehner said. “Raising taxes, rationing care, and empowering government bureaucrats -- not patients and doctors -- to make key medical decisions is not ‘reform.’ This plan will make health care more expensive, reduce the quality of care for millions of families and small businesses, cost American jobs, and force untold millions of Americans off their current plans and into a government-run nightmare operated by federal bureaucrats.” House Ways and Means Committee ranking Republican Dave Camp of Michigan expressed concerns about the cost of this undertaking. “The Democrats are refusing to reveal the price tag of this bill or how they will pay for it, but it is obvious it will cost well over a trillion dollars,” Camp said. “We will certainly need to examine the details, but I fear this plan will force tens of millions of Americans to lose their current health care coverage and put the federal government in charge of determining what doctors and treatments are available to patients. Those dangers will be magnified by the hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden tax increases that could cause millions more Americans to lose their jobs.” “Americans need a real bipartisan solution on health care -- this bill isn’t,” Camp added. “The sooner Democrats invite us to sit down together, not just as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans, the sooner we can craft a commonsense solution that will make health care more affordable, accessible and available for all Americans.” Gohmert Introduces Health Savings Accounts Health Care Plan Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), the man who brought you the Tax Holiday stimulus plan, has a fresh, innovative health care plan that centers on health savings accounts that give individuals control over health care spending. (Gohmert’s “tax holiday” alternative to Obama’s stimulus plan would have simply excused Americans from paying taxes for most of the year. It would have worked -- at far greater speed and lower cost -- than Obama’s failed stimulus package.) Every American citizen would maintain a personal, family, household or employer-provided Health Savings Account (HSA), all contributions from pre-tax dollars. Rather than filtering money through “premiums, profits and taxes first,” patients would spend the money directly from their own HSA. There is no limit on how much pre-tax money could be put into this health savings account. This would work in conjunction with a catastrophic insurance policy that is adjustable as the savings account grows over years and even generations. These HSAs would roll over each year and would also be an asset that would be passed on to your family or designee. Any amount over $3,000 could also be invested in a manner that would “include stable, inflation-protected federal treasury bonds so that your investment can have added growth. A separate type of federal Treasury bond may be created in other legislation specifically for such investment. That way, as long as there is a United States, your healthcare savings will be there for you when you need it.” Each person would be issued a debit card to access the funding. These cards would be coded and could only be used for health care purchases. No hassles or paperwork. “We are rolling out a new health care plan because the plans we’ve seen so far have involved too much government and too much insurance company involvement, which has been a big part of our problem,” Gohmert said at the announcement. “If you liked my Tax Holiday Plan, you’re going to love this one. This plan will give every American the treatment that they need, when they need it, with the doctor of their choosing and at a price that is affordable.” You can read the plan online here. 24) Rasmussen: 39% Now Blame Bad Economy On Obama’s Policies Rasmussen Reports http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/june_2009/39_now_blame_bad_economy_on_obama_s_policies http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2276794/posts June 22, 2009 Scott Rasmussen While most U.S. voters still blame the Bush Administration for the nation’s economic problems, a growing number are inclined to blame President Barack Obama. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of voters now say the country’s economic problems are caused more by the policies Obama has put in place. That’s a 12-point jump from a month ago. Fifty-four percent (54%) still say the country’s economic woes are due to the recession Obama inherited from President Bush. That figure is down eight points from 62% from early June. By a two-to-one margin, voters also have more confidence in themselves than in the president when it comes to the economy. This marks a significant shift from just after Obama took office. Sixty percent (60%) of voters now trust their own economic judgment more than the president’s. In early February, 49% had more trust in themselves while 39% trusted the president more. Now only 30% trust Obama more when it comes to the economic issues facing the nation. Younger voters are more likely than their elders to blame the current economic situation on the recession that began under Bush. The majority of middle income voters place more of the blame on Obama’s policies. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Democrats see the economic problems as ones largely inherited from the previous administration, while 61% of GOP voters point the finger at the actions of the new president. Unaffiliated voters are almost evenly divided on the question. Men are more likely than women to trust themselves rather than the president when it comes to the economy. Middle-income voters have more confidence in themselves than those who earn more and less. The partisan split is predictable. Republicans trust themselves more than Obama by a whopping 75% to 19% margin. The findings for voters not affiliated with either major party are virtually identical. But Democrats are much more closely divided, with nearly half trusting the president more. Obama’s ratings slipped to new lows at the end of last week in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, but he continues to be more popular than many of his policies. Despite strong public opposition, the president has pushed hard for bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler, both now in structured bankruptcies aimed at keeping them in business. The government has taken substantial ownership stakes in both companies in exchange for federal bailout money, but 80% of U.S. voters want the government to sell its stake in GM and Chrysler as soon as possible. Even as Obama announced earlier this month his intention to speed up the pace of stimulus spending, the plurality of Americans (45%) said the rest of the new government spending authorized in the $787-billion economic stimulus plan should be canceled. In fact, most voters (53%) continue to believe increases in government spending hurt the economy. Fifty-one percent (51%) favor an across-the-board tax cut for all Americans to stimulate the U.S. economy. While the president last week was aggressively campaigning for the creation of a government-run health insurance company to compete with private insurers, Americans are evenly divided now over whether that’s a good idea. Americans are similarly divided on the urgency of moving ahead with health care reform right now given the state of the economy. 25) The Man Who Would Be God Townhall.com http://townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2009/06/22/the_man_who_would_be_god http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2276704/posts June 22, 2009 Burt Prelutsky A while back, I heard Obama bragging about his first few months in the White House. When he claimed he had done as much in that period as any president in history, my initial thought was that for the first time in his life he was being modest. Frankly, I think he’s done more, much more, and I only wish that some of it had been good for America. He’s taken over car companies, banks and lending institutions. He’s printed so much currency that he’s the envy of counterfeiters and con men everywhere. He’s buried the nation in so much debt that children born 40 years down the road will be greeted with a slap on the butt and a lien on future earnings. For good measure, the Community Organizer in Chief has created more czars than the Romanovs. Still, we’re told, a majority of Americans like Obama. That would absolutely confound me if I wasn’t already aware that a lot of people think David Letterman, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are funny. But liberals are always, in the words of the Siamese king, a puzzlement. For instance, when I was five years old, my family still lived in Chicago. One day, I recall, a cousin came running up the stairs and pounded on the door to breathlessly announce that President Roosevelt was dead. The way my parents and older brothers reacted, you’d have thought the Nazis had just stormed ashore at Lake Michigan. My parents were grief-stricken. For the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why. I remember thinking how odd it was that my family was so sad over the death of someone who’d never even visited our apartment. Well, of course that’s the way a child would think. But the truth is, I’m now 69 years old and I still can’t figure it out. To this day, FDR holds a warm spot in the hearts of most Jews for reasons I can’t begin to imagine. There is nothing in FDR’s record that shows he had positive feelings about Jews. Some people have even suggested that, with his patrician background, he probably had a negative attitude. But the fact remains that he refused to let the Jews aboard the St. Louis disembark, and instead forced the ship and its passengers to return to Europe, back into the hands of the Nazis. For good measure, FDR, although urged by many, also refused to bomb the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps. Although FDR’s apologists like to point out that there were a great many isolationists in and out of Congress who opposed our entry into World War II, the fact remains that in the end Hitler declared war on us and not the other way around. I know many Jews who think that because Rahm Emanuel, a Jew, has Obama’s ear, it means Israel can rely on Obama’s better instincts. What they are ignoring is that Mr. Emanuel is a longtime veteran of Chicago politics, which means that power and influence are an end in themselves. And as every tyrant and left-winger will tell you, the ends justify the means. With friends like Obama and Emanuel, Israel doesn’t need any enemies, although God knows they have plenty. One of the things that annoys me the most about Obama is how easily he lies. One of the things that annoys me about the media is the way they enable him to get away with it. For instance, when he jammed through the trillion-dollar pork pie, he claimed it was so urgently needed, he couldn’t spare the legislators even 48 hours to plow through the 1,100 pages. However, once they passed the bill, Obama waited four days before flying off to Denver to sign it. Lately, there’s been a video making the rounds on the Internet showing one of Obama’s female bureaucrats being grilled by a congressional committee that was trying to find out where a couple of trillion dollars might have gone missing. I almost felt sorry for the lady as she shuffled her papers around, as if the money might be hiding between the pages. After six or seven minutes of this hilarious, but chilling, charade, I fully expected her to say her dog ate it. A second lie that recently went unquestioned by the media was Obama’s claim that he had only given President Sarkozy short shrift when he was in France because it was essential that he get back to the Oval Office and make those tough decisions that only he can make. And, sure enough, it turned out that within an hour of his return to Washington, he was on the golf course, making one of those gut-wrenching executive decisions -- deciding whether to use a putter or a sand wedge from the edge of a bunker. To get to the Free Republic website (where I get nearly ALL of the articles I post here), simply click on the (above) Free Republic banner - OR just click on "Forums (browse all)" - where the actual articles that I use are found. (NOTE: For those of you who DO register at Free Republic....I use the screen name "ConservativeStLouisGuy".) Saint Alberic Crescitelli | Favorite President George W. Bush Pictures | Website Home Page/Index | Fr. Seamus Hogan Homilies Archive "All Things Political" Archives, 1999-2004 | "All Things Political" Archives, 2004-2005 | "All Things Political" Archives, 2005-Present "Religion/Culture/Morals" Archives, 1999-2004 | "Religion/Culture/Morals" Archives, 2004-Present | Computer-Related Stuff NEWEST Things Posted Printer-Friendly Page | NEWEST Things Posted | Favorite Websites Religious Denominations In The United States TOP OF PAGE