A little more than one year ago, Chuck Colson (the Evangelical founder of Prison Fellowship who, long before that, was an ill-advised advisor to Richard Nixon in the heat of the Watergate debacle) released, alongside Roman Catholic academic heavy hitter Robert George, a manifesto that might be considered the defensive foxholes of the Culture Wars. 

The document, dubbed the Manhattan Declaration, was lauded by many on the Right upon its release.  It has since been signed by tens of thousands.  A link to the document and its cyberhome follows this post.

One of the most direct paragraphs of this forthright 6000-plus word manifesto reads as follows:

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

Secularists may all yawn at this point, noting new here – ”just move along ma’am, nothing new to see hear, c’mon keeping it movin’”

But this Declaration is no mere recitation of a common creed for the politically and religiously minded of the Right.  It is also a declaring of an intent to dig in and really resist the secular world order on the erosion of these three dogmas.

After a brief and cogent overview of 2000 years of the church’s social teachings, a pledge is made to stop the hemorrhaging of Christendom via passive resistance.  This is the line drawn in the sands of relativism in the Manhattan Declaration.  The pledge to hold the line reads like this:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

The above paragraph can test presupostions.

Some read in it the spirit of Gandalf shouting out his intentions against the Balrog of Moria on the Bridge of Khazad-dum: “YOU SHALL NOT PASS!”

Others instead hear the threats of those whose rich lives were built on the slave plantation system — they hear a cry similar to that which arose from the slave holders decrying the postbellum age of civil rights and mechanized agriculture.

Is the relativistic age that is yet attempting to be born in our midst – an age that presents human life as a commodity, marriage as a merely secular contract and political correctness as the contours of acceptable expression — is this age a boon or a bust for America? 

Relativism is well defined and well revealed by Ken Wilber, in A Theory of Everything:

“[Relativism] claimed that all truth is culturally situated (except its own truth, which is for all cultures); it claimed there are no transcendental truths (except its own pronouncements, which transcend specific contexts); it claimed that all hierarchies or value rankings are oppressive and marginalizing (except its own value ranking, which is superior to the alternatives); it claimed that there are no universal truths (except its own pluralism, which is universally true for all peoples).”

Those signing the Manhattan Declaration see this age of relativism, this present Balrog bearing down upon us, as a total bust for America, and wish to warn their fellow Americans that the complete and total secularization of our ethics will lead us to the graveyard of nations. 

WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS? 

Then join the community discussion live at the Allen County Public Library, 3pm, on Saturday, January 29.  A panel consisting of Franciscan priest Father David Mary Engo, diocesan priest Father Glenn Kohrman and University of St. Francis theologian Dr. John Bequette will be joined on stage by others — tea party and pro-life activists (among others) to present and discuss the controversial Manhattan Declaration.  It will be “open mic” season in the audience, and you are invited to attend — whether you consider the Manhattan Declaration a spirited warning to a destructive Balrog or rather the dying screams of an unjust Christian order.

More details at www.archangelinstitute.org

Here is the path to the Manhattan Declaration:  http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/home.aspx

No related posts.

Related posts:

1. Indiana Legislative Preview By Micah Clark 2011 Indiana General Assembly is Less than...
2. Obama “allahu akbar” nomination needs to be stopped Obama has picked what the White House calls another “judicial...
3. Congressman Mike Pence Endorses Jim Banks for State Senate     “Jim Banks is a true conservative and would...

2011 Indiana General Assembly is Less than One Week Away!

The Indiana legislature is right around the corner, with an official start up date of January 5th. We are starting to review the first of more than 1,200 bills that are typically filed in each session.

Here are a few bills that have been made public that we have reviewed which might interest you, and give you an idea of the wide variety of issues considered:Senate Bill 5 (& SB 57) – These bills address the problem of synthetic marijuana, which has been found to be far more dangerous than actual “pot.” They define a “synthetic cannabinoid” and makes possessing, dealing in, manufacturing, or delivering it the same criminal penalty as with marijuana or hashish.

Senate Bill 29 – This bill concerns the crime of child solicitation in our sex-saturated society. When I first began as an intern in the Indiana House in 1990 there were very few bills addressing criminal sexual misconduct with children. Today, it is not unusual to have a dozen different bills concerning solicitation, “sexting”, child porn or what used to be statutory rape, now called sexual misconduct with a minor.

Senate Bill 43 – Here is another example of this issue. This bill requires that certain persons convicted of child molesting and violent sex offenders be required to wear a GPS tracking device upon parole.

Senate Bill 50 – This bill would require any woman obtaining an elective abortion to have an ultrasound beforehand.

House Bill 1028 (& HB 1043)– Those who seem to think that protecting marriage and keeping the importance of both a mother and a father in that institution is a distraction or too controversial to address should consider these bills. HB 1028 and 1043 are “right to work” bills, which prohibit as a condition of employment the requirement that an employee join a union or pay union dues. I personally believe this bill could have economic benefits for Indiana, but the last time this was seriously attempted, over five thousand noisy protesters stormed the capitol building. It was the biggest demonstration I’ve ever seen at our capitol in my 20 years of experience there. If controversy is an excuse for avoiding an important issue, marriage protection is far less controversial than many other bills we will see this year.

House Bill 1042 – This bill concerns the issue of cell phone “sexting” and the illegal dissemination and possession of sexual material. The bill addresses this problem in schools among students. The problem has become so severe and pervasive that many believe charging kids with serious felonies is not a realistic option. I do not necessarily agree. (If kids knew the seriousness of this crime, they might be less inclined to take that risk.) Yet, this bill is an effort to give schools better tools to address this problem.

Related posts:

1. Children’s Book, Behavior & Legislation By Micah Clark “I want to say “thank you” again...
2. Obama “allahu akbar” nomination needs to be stopped Obama has picked what the White House calls another “judicial...

Stick To The TEA

Gary Gerard
Times-Union General Manager

I get the sense that Tea Party types really don’t feel like they need any advice, but I’m going give them some anyway.

At the outset of the Tea Party movement, I was pretty excited about it. Lately, I’ve become a little concerned about it – nationally and locally.

The whole thing started out being about taxes and limited government. I’m all for that. Remember Taxed Enough Already? That’s what put the Tea in the Tea Party.

Tea Party members harkened back to Revolutionary War days – taxation without representation and the like. And some Tea Party groups have stayed the course with regard to their core issues.

To me, the Tea Party movement should be about three main issues:

• Promoting fiscal responsibility in government.
• Ensuring a constitutionally limited government.
• Encouraging free markets and private-sector business growth.

Now, the elephant in the room that affects all three of those issues is, of course, taxes.

If you encourage free markets and business growth there will be more tax revenue flowing to the treasury.

If you constitutionally limit government and promote fiscal responsibility in government, taxes will be inherently lower because government won’t need to gobble up as much private sector wealth to feed itself.

As government expands, it adds more employees. Government employees are paid by tax dollars. There are only so many workers. When you move a private sector worker into a government job, you deplete the pool of people paying for government and add to the amount of money needed to fund government.

Government hiring is up 17 percent. The median government worker is compensated at a rate just about double that of the median private sector worker.

At the same time, federal deficits are threatening the stability of the dollar and the viability of essential government services.

These are issues that I believe are the greatest threat to our way of life – our liberty.

If the Tea Party took laser aim at those issues, I think a vast swath of the American political spectrum could get on board.

They are fiscally conservative issues, to be sure, but there are plenty of people out there who may not consider themselves “conservatives” who still espouse those ideals.

Do people like that feel comfortable in the Tea Party movement? Would a Libertarian feel comfortable showing up at a Tea Party rally?

The more I watch the Tea Party movement, the more I see it alienating significant numbers of the very people it needs to support itself long term.

Instead of sticking to the core, bread and butter issues of limited government, low taxes and fiscal conservativism, many Tea Party groups are pushing cultural and social values.

When they do that, they push people away. They make people feel unwelcome, uncomfortable. There is no “Big Tent” sentiment in some of the Tea Party.

It’s as if you have to pass some litmus test of ardent, across-the-board conservatism to get into some of these Tea Party groups.

I’m afraid that kind of thinking excludes a lot of potential supporters.

I can attest to the fact that many Tea Party groups indeed have a litmus test of sorts, but in general, it’s not something they apply to membership, since most of the groups do not have a membership committee or a test to gain entry. I do see many of them wanting candidates that support a return to our founding principles and adherence to the framers’ original intentions. Many of them bombard candidates with questionnaires, and if a candidate fails to answer them, some Tea Party groups blacklist them.

If you’re not pro-life, pro-gun, overtly Christian, anti-gay, pro-war and anti-immigrant amnesty you need not apply.

The “overtly Christian” thing is something that does bother me with some Tea Party groups. Personally, I don’t care what your religion is, or the lack thereof. If you’re serious about changing Washington, why should it matter what your religious affiliation is? Like many conservatives, I have an issue with the attempts to erase God’s name and likeness from every school and public building, but I also respect someone’s right to be godless.

What I would like to see from Tea Party groups is for them to embrace the fact that everyone should have a sense of theism. Instead, many Tea Party groups are parading ministers, evangelists and and other religious leaders through their events. That indeed may keep some from coming under the big tent the Tea Parties would like to create. Let’s keep religion at home, church, the synagogue, mosque or wherever you worship.

While I’m a God fearing Catholic boy and don’t want him left out of my life, the Tea Party’s focus should be on a return to fiscal responsibility, free markets and a constitutionally limited government, but I don’t agree that social issues should be left at the door. More on that later.

Anti-gay? I’ve not heard that one from any Indiana group.

Pro-war? Another one I haven’t heard from a Tea Party group. You cannot be for a smaller government and a larger U.S. military industrial complex. As former President  Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, “Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction…” There’s a balance in  maintaining a strong defense and democracy, and sometimes, as was the case with Iraq, it was required. Many Tea Party groups have a large Ron Paul following. Ron Paul if you’ll recall, would bring home every troop and let the tyrannical warlords wage war and wreak havoc the world over.

On anti-immigrant amnesty, I don’t see that has a Tea Party exclusive issue. Close to 70% of Americans are not in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

To be sure, many fiscal conservatives are likely to be social conservatives as well, but what if they’re not? Why not embrace them? Why not make a Libertarian feel comfortable in your Tea Party group?

Some Tea Party groups are doing just that. They are sticking to the issues that brought them together – taxes and spending. They stay away from the divisive social issues.

Here’s a quote from Toby Marie Walker, lead facilitator for the Waco, Texas, Tea Party group. She was interviewed on National Public Radio.

“Well, here in Waco … we don’t touch on the social issues. And the reason that we don’t is because right now, the Tea Party is about the economy. And while the social issues on a personal level are important to a lot of our members, we stay away from those issues because they’re so divisive. … We keep it about the taxes and the spending and the overreach of the government.”

Yeah, and that makes it easier to attract members from all across the political spectrum.

And there is solid precedent for that type of political activism. Some of the most effective and influential political action groups stick to their issues.

If you want to join the National Rifle Association, they’re not going to ask you your views on immigration.

I subscribe to several Tea Party email lists. Most if not all Tea Party groups have a similar theme for smaller government and a return to our roots. They also have differing beliefs and their own unique agenda when it comes to the military, abortion, religion, etc.

Some are fairly radical in their way of thinking and it’s their way or they ban you should you disagree. The Indiana iCaucus group is one, and I’m proud to say I was kicked out of that group.

The Liberty Coalition based here in Fort Wayne is another. When they started quoting Alex Jones of Prison Planet, (a well know nut case) in their emails, I opted-out. Jones is well known for his belief in UFOs and that 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S. government. The Liberty Coalition also distributes material to ministers and pastors to assist them in political activism. I for one, do not want to hear politics from the pulpit.

Joining the National Rifle Association is not analogous to joining a Tea Party. The NRA wants your money for obvious reasons. You need to pay them to gain membership and yes, that’s all they want. While some Tea Party groups may pass the hat around, I know of none that require a payment to become a member. I also know of none that have a litmus test for membership.

I agree that no party should be attempting to cram cultural and social values down my throat, I’m a big boy and can decide those for myself. But there’s one item Gerard did expand on. Abortion. It’s something that needs change, and if Tea Party groups support it and require it of their candidates, all the better.

In closing, I think the Tea Party movement is a good thing for this country. It’s an awakening of sorts and come November, some of the groups will be able to take credit for conservatives regaining some house seats. This won’t be the case in most of Northern Indiana, people are too set in their voting habits, or are just too lazy to even vote.

Here’s the rest of Gerard’s article, I missed it yesterday.

If you want to join Right To Life, they’re not going to ask you if you support the war in Afghanistan.

The Tea Party could operate the same way. It doesn’t have to take stands on all those other social and traditional values issues, one way or the other.

I’ve noticed our local Tea Party group, Silent No More, has gone the other way. They are far from being focused solely on economic issues.

In fact, much of their focus seems to be aimed at social, moral and values issues.

Things like prayer and fasting and tent revivals are wonderful and they play well in Kosciusko County.

To read the Facebook posts of some SNM members, one could get the impression that what they really would like is to set up a theocracy in America.

Certainly it’s OK to have opinions and ideals like that. That’s what freedom is about. Groups are free to organize, assemble, meet and use their influence any way they chose.

My concern is that if Tea Party groups push too hard on social and moral issues, they risk marginalizing themselves.

Certainly, the consensus among members of any given Tea Party group is strong. But it’s the people on the outside looking in that you need to reach if the group is to remain viable.

Seems to me people on the outside are starting to get the sense that Tea Party groups are far right or fringy.

I believe, for long-time political viability and maximum impact on federal policy, the Tea Party needs to stick to the TEA.

I agree, when a Tea Party group starts holding fasting events and southern style tent revivals, I get turned off.

Related posts:

1. Children’s Book, Behavior & Legislation By Micah Clark “I want to say “thank you” again...
2. Obama “allahu akbar” nomination needs to be stopped Obama has picked what the White House calls another “judicial...
3. No word from the Pope on Kennedy’s death Here....

A bit later I provided a link to back up my statement.It was this link, and it worked when I posted it. Someone let me know minutes ago the link was not longer working. You now get this:

I’m not saying they took it down because of me. But, I looked around the site, and there is a new page for matching gifts here:

So, they don’t want you to know who does matching gifts? Or, did someone in the reputation management area of Starbucks find my post and ask that it be taken down? I don’t know the answer, maybe it was just a planned change.

Nonetheless, I have the original PDF, and you can now view it here.

No related posts.

This is What Change Looks Like

It is hard to encapsulate what has happened to our nation in the last few days with the passage and signing of the massive health care reform legislation. At a time when America is literally bankrupt and on the verge of losing its triple AAA bond status, with high unemployment and no end to it in sight, the US Congress passed the largest entitlement bill ever seen in most of our lifetimes. The unfunded mandate for states like Indiana is enormous and potentially devastating over time as the program, like all government entitlements before it, grows far beyond the projected expense numbers.

Here are a few missed projections of much smaller government health care programs:

• In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare – the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled – would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.

• In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost that year was $98 billion.

• In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid – the joint federal-state health care program for the poor – would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was $17 billion.

• In 1988 the cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1993 to be $4 billion. The actual cost that year was $10 billion.

Anyone who thinks that the Health Care Reform Act will not have a negative impact upon the prosperity and tax burden of our children and grandchildren is woefully naive. “Free” health insurance is coming to millions of Americans with a massive price tag.

However, conservatives and Republicans need to be very careful if they assume that the passage of this legislation over the will of the people through a host of backroom deals and arm-twisting will easily hand them election victories this fall. First of all, in politics, seven months is a lifetime. Voters often have short memories and the proponents of this behemoth have very shrewdly timed a lot of the legislation’s negatives until after the 2010 and 2012 elections.

If there is one thing that could come back to haunt Democrats (there were no Republicans who supported this plan), it is the fear factor of being drug to the gallows. Americans may not yet feel the impact of this legislation, but they do not like how it all came about. It is possible that there is a growing distrust and discomfort that cannot be erased or hidden past an election. This comes from the sheer smarminess of the President’s agenda, his Congressional supporters, and what pay offs they will arrange or put in legislation in order to achieve their ultimate leftist objectives regardless of the views of the citizens.

President Obama (and House Speaker Pelosi in 2006) pledged to be new, transformative political leaders who would rise above politics as usual to a higher level of ethics, openness, bi-partisanship and cooperation with a new style of people-centered governance. Nothing has been farther from the truth, and it is a painful reality that can no longer be hidden.

Shortly before midnight on Sunday the President gave a short four-minute televised statement on the passage of the legislation. I have not been able to get past six words in which he said, “this is what change looks like.” Fasten your seat belts passengers; the next three years are going to be a very long and bumpy ride.

AFA of Indiana Calls for Lawsuit to Block Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill

I have been flooded with calls, e-mails and questions from supporters and friends asking what can be done about the passage of this legislation over the will of the people.

Yesterday morning AFA of Indiana delivered a written request asking Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller to look into the legislation and the constitutional questions surrounding it.

Attorneys General in Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington announced that they would likely join together to file suit to block the implementation of the legislation based upon Constitutional concerns. Additionally the Attorney General of Virginia announced plans for an individual lawsuit based upon specific concerns surrounding a Virginia statute. Reports indicate that the Idaho Attorney General may file a similar suit to that of Virginia.

In our letter to Attorney General Zoeller, I cited concerns over the violation of the 10th Amendment, which states “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states.” I also mentioned concerns about the justification for the legislation via the “commerce clause” of the Constitution. I wrote, “To my knowledge this clause has never been used or interpreted to force individuals to buy something, much less insurance. In fact, if a Hoosier decides not to buy health insurance, by definition this individual is NOT engaging in any type of interstate commerce.”

I am sure that several groups and members of Congress are also calling upon the Indiana Attorney General to look into a lawsuit. Attorney General Zoeller is a very sharp and thoughtful legal expert. We’ll see if he sees a solid reason that justifies Indiana in joining in on these challenges.

Is Notre Dame University Still Confused Over the Politics of Abortion?

Even though the US Conference of Catholic Bishops was very clear in their opposition to the health care legislation bill due to its abortion funding provisions, it’s clear that this message didn’t seem to have much of an impact with the former president of Notre Dame University.

A report in the Los Angeles Times praising the influence of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tells of her calling Father Theodore Hesburgh, former president of Notre Dame. The Speaker was not calling for spiritual guidance, but political help for the pro-abortion legislation. She asked Hesburgh to call Indiana Congressman Joe Donnelly, a Democrat from South Bend who allegedly had concerns over the abortion issue. The reporter observing the call and the Speaker’s clout does not report on the ND president’s response, but notes that Donnelly supported the bill over the objections of pro-life and Catholic groups.

A year after Notre Dame was criticized for hosting President Obama, the Speaker of the House hundreds of miles away, knew so well where the past President of ND stood politically, that she had no hesitation in calling him and asking him to ignore the teachings of his church in order to do a political power play with a local legislator. This news story does not reflect well upon the moral teachings of the Indiana college if its past president doesn’t even place them above politics.

Speaking of Life

On Thursday, April 15th, Life Centers of Indianapolis will host a fund-raising event featuring former President George W. Bush and award winning singing artist, Sandi Patti at Conseco Fieldhouse. For tickets or more information click this link:

http://www.lifecenters.com/events.html

Follow Up To Governor’s Guns vs. Business Dilemma

A few weeks ago I mentioned Indiana House Bill 1065 which pitted some business groups against 2nd Amendment advocates. The bill had easily passed the legislature and was headed to the Governor’s desk as the media and some business groups turned up the heat on the issue of guns at the workplace. The bill had two provisions. One part was the prohibition against confiscating legally owned firearms during a state emergency. This was a concern that stemmed from reports of such confiscations during Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The second part allowed an individual to lock a legally owned and licensed firearm in his or her car during work hours even if his employer opposed that right of the individual. This was the part that concerned some business groups.

Governor Daniels signed HB 1065 into law on March 15th.

Related posts:

1. Micah Clark’s weekly update Indiana is Officially Fighting Back! Last week I mentioned that I...
2. The war on terror now points to gun toting, bible thumping rednecks Obama is slowly rewriting America’s dialogue with other countries, while...

Just how moderate is U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton?

Judge Hamilton, a district court judge, is Barack Obama’s nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. That very court has cited Judge Hamilton for abusing his power as a judge.

In 1994, the 7th Circuit rebuked Judge Hamilton for denying a Rabbi the right to display a Menorah as part of an Indianapolis holiday display.

In 2005, Judge Hamilton prohibited the Indiana House of Representatives from praying if Jesus’s name was mentioned, but said praying in Allah’s name was perfectly fine.

Fort Hood come to mind? I’m just saying..

He also is one of the most lenient judges in America when it comes to crime and criminals.

In United States v. Rinehart, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 19498 (S.D. Ind. Feb 2, 2007), Judge Hamilton used his opinion to request clemency for a police officer who pled guilty to two counts of child pornography. The 32 year old officer had engaged in “consensual” sex with two teenagers and videotaped his activities.

In United States v. Woolsey, 535 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2008), the Seventh Circuit faulted Judge Hamilton for disregarding an earlier conviction in order to avoid imposing a life sentence on a repeat offender.

Before becoming a federal judge, Hamilton was the vice president for litigation and a board member of the Indiana branch of the ACLU, (read:pro-abortion).

Over a period of sever years, Hamilton made numerous rulings that stopped Indiana from using its informed consent law. Had he not ruled against it, women would have been give information about the risks of abortion, as well as alternatives.

When Clinton appointed him 1994, he did so in spite of the fact the American Bar Association gave Hamilton a “not qualified” rating.

And Sen. Dick Lugar (RINO-IN) stated back in March he would support Hamilton during the Senate confirmation process.

Bayh and Lugar both need to be called and told to oppose cloture on Judge Hamilton and support a filibuster. Hamilton’s nomination will likely be opposed by all or almost all of the 40 Republicans, well, excluding Dick Lugar.

Click here for Bayh’s and Lugar’s contact information.

Related posts:

1. Axelrod: Obama wants you to pay for abortions I sensed this was coming as soon as the amendment,...
2. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Bulletin Tell Congress: Remove Abortion Funding & Mandates from Needed Health...
3. Change you can believe in? Monthly Abortion Premiums From House Republican Leader John Boehner’s official blog What is...

Our nation is at a crossroads. Policies adopted in health care reform will have an impact for good or
ill for years to come. None of the bills retains longstanding current policies against abortion funding
or abortion coverage mandates, and none fully protects conscience rights in health care.
As the U.S. bishops’ letter of October 8 states:

“No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the
legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal
restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience.
No current bill meets this test…. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found,
we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously.”

For the full text of this letter and more information on proposed legislation and the bishops’ advocacy
for authentic health care reform, visit: www.usccb.org/healthcare.

Congressional leaders are attempting to put together final bills for floor consideration. Please contact
your Representative and Senators today and urge them to fix these bills with the pro-life amendments
noted below. Otherwise much needed health care reform will have to be opposed. Health care reform
should be about saving lives, not destroying them.

ACTION: Contact Members through e-mail, phone calls or FAX letters.
- To send a pre-written, instant e-mail to Congress go to www.usccb.org/action.
- Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at: 202-224-3121, or call your Members’ local offices.
- Full contact info can be found on Members’ web sites at www.house.gov & www.senate.gov.

MESSAGE to SENATE:
“During floor debate on the health care reform bill, please support an amendment to
incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights.
If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill should be opposed.”

MESSAGE to HOUSE:
“Please support the Stupak Amendment that addresses essential pro-life concerns on abortion
funding and conscience rights in the health care reform bill. Help ensure that the Rule for the
bill allows a vote on this amendment. If these serious concerns are not addressed, the final bill
should be opposed.”

WHEN: Both House and Senate are preparing for floor votes now. Act today! Thank you!

Related posts:

1. Speaking of life being precious, it’s time to call Senator Bayh The Health Care reform debate took another turn on Wednesday...
2. Axelrod: Obama wants you to pay for abortions I sensed this was coming as soon as the amendment,...
3. Change you can believe in? Monthly Abortion Premiums From House Republican Leader John Boehner’s official blog What is...

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan.

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s 2,032-page government takeover of health care does just that. On line 17, p. 110, section 222 [PDF] under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.

Section 213 describes the process in which the Health Benefits Commissioner is to assess the monthly premiums that will be used to pay for elective abortions under the government-run plan. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month.

Complete post is here.

Time’s running out. Call your representative today. Senators contact information is here, Congressman contact info is here.

Related posts:

1. HR 3200 will raise your payroll cost by 8% I’m sure that employers will cringe when they see this....
2. Obama backing down on “public option?” I just got out of bed at 3:30 this afternoon....
3. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Bulletin Tell Congress: Remove Abortion Funding & Mandates from Needed Health...

Related posts:

1. Are Tea Party groups losing their way? Gary Gerard, General Manager of the Times Union in Warsaw,...
2. Children’s Book, Behavior & Legislation By Micah Clark “I want to say “thank you” again...
3. Obama “allahu akbar” nomination needs to be stopped Obama has picked what the White House calls another “judicial...

Click the link below to continue reading.

The opposing forces as see in the picture below had about 8-9 people present.

The opposing group was lead by Joan Uebelhoer, a well-known abortion rights activist from Fort Wayne. A little about her from the book, “Feminists who changed America.”

Joan Uebelhoer has played many roles. In her own words: “I have been a teacher of mathematics, an elected official, a director of a Planned Parenthood Clinic, a director of a county Welfare Office. I still teach Women’s Studies at Indiana Purdue at Fort Wayne.

From an August 9, 2008 article in the Journal Gazette

Physician seeks law for post-op

A local gynecologist has asked the Allen County Commissioners to consider a local law that could enhance follow-up care for surgery patients but could also affect a local abortion provider.

Regarding this case, Joan pretends to have beliefs and principles that fly in the face of her position a year later. It’s all liberal politics.

But a local pro-choice activist felt the proposal was a strange way to limit women’s choices locally. Joan Uebelhoer with the Fort Wayne Feminists said if there is a problem with patient safety in Allen County, the commissioners aren’t suited to fix it.

“I can’t believe that the commissioners would even get involved in such a thing. What is it their business, either legally or personally?” Uebelhoer said. “This is just another way to take woman’s decision-making abilities from her.”

Okay Joan. So you’re telling us if local government wants to enact legislation that affects healthcare, it’s not okay. You claim it’s just another way to take away their decision making capabilities. Yet, now that Obama wants to do the same thing to every citizen of this country, it’s okay?

Damn liberal lunatics.

More pics below.

Related posts:

1. Congressman Mark Souder to address Hands off my Health Care rally in Fort Wayne Update: Speakers for the event: - Congressman Mark Souder -...
2. Liberal hypocrisy – You can’t attend a town hall meeting without a photo ID Via NewsBusters.org Oh, this takes the cake. Texas Democrat Congressman...
3. Booing Obama and healthcare for illegal aliens FWIW, the guy in the hat was calling Obama a...

Click for larger image

No related posts.

“Tonight, President Obama is taking to the airwaves to try to convince us it’s more important to get his health care legislation done quickly than to get done it right. The fact of the matter is there is not enough time in the next week to ensure that this 1,000 page bill does not increase the cost of healthcare, does not increase taxes on businesses or individuals, does not decrease our quality of care, and does not limit the accessibility or availability of private insurance.”

“I fail to understand how the President, as smart as he is, can convince himself that it’s appropriate to attempt to reform this huge part of our economy inside an arbitrary and dangerously condensed time frame. His original goal was three weeks; it’s not unusual for a family to take longer than that to purchase a house. Yet, despite calls from members of his own party to slow the pace, he continues to push a reckless timetable for his risky health care experiment.”

Related posts:

1. Indiana Republicans question Rep. Baron Hill’s change of heart on health care In response to the news that Rep. Baron Hill would...
2. Complete Congressman Ellsworth’s Health Care Survey From Congressman Ellsworth’s web site: As Congress works to turn...
3. Congressman Mark Souder to address Hands off my Health Care rally in Fort Wayne Update: Speakers for the event: - Congressman Mark Souder -...

But you have to applaud Obama for transparency. He’s even extending transparency to the terrorist by releasing Bush-era memos about CIA interrogation techniques.

A former top official in the administration of President George W. Bush called the publication of the memos “unbelievable.”

“It’s damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama’s action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are,” the official said. “We have laid it all out for our enemies. This is totally unnecessary. … Publicizing the techniques does grave damage to our national security by ensuring they can never be used again — even in a ticking-time- bomb scenario where thousands or even millions of American lives are at stake.”

And they’re no longer terrorists and it’s no longer the “war on terror.”. According to the new Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, they’re now known as “man-made disaster makers” and the war on terror is an “overseas contingency operation.”

At the same time Napolitano is calling men and women that have proudly served our country in the military “rightwing extremists”. Or, if you’re against abortion or illegal immigration, you must be a rightwing nutcase.

In the report, right-wing extremism was defined as hate-motivated groups and movements, such as hatred of certain religions, racial or ethnic groups. “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” the report said.

How is it they forgot to mention the radical leftwing groups within the animal rights, environmental, and anarchist extremist movements that have actually conducted criminal or terrorist activities. How about the Earth Liberation Front, or ELF, for example?

Anyone remember ELF member Jeff “Free” Luers, who is serving a ten year sentence for the firebombing of SUV’s at a dealership because he thought they were bad for the environment? Luers said he did it to “raise awareness about global warming.”

Or how about these ELF whackos?

From WIKI

In late 2006, a number of self-described ELF members pled guilty to arson and other charges in U.S. federal courts.[12]

On November 11, 2006, Joyanna Zacher, Nathan Block, Daniel McGowan and Jonathan Paul pleaded guilty to several eco-sabotage related charges, as part of a global resolution agreement with prosecutors. Judge Ann Aiken presided over the hearings. The change of pleas from the four defendants resolves all current “Operation Backfire” cases in Oregon.[13]

On December 15, 2006, Chelsea Dawn Gerlach and Stanislas Gregory Meyerhoff, pleaded guilty to $20 million worth of arsons committed between 1996 and 2001 by the Eugene-based cell of the ELF known as “The Family”. Their fire-bombing of a Vail ski resort resulted in damages totaling $12 million, with the FBI characterized the ELF as the United States’ “top domestic terrorism threat”. Gerlach has previously pleaded guilty to 18 counts of arson in other attacks, saying she was motivated by “a deep sense of despair and anger at the deteriorating state of the global environment,” but adding that she has “since realized the firebombings did more harm than good.” Meyerhoff has renounced ELF and pleaded guilty to 54 counts, but is still under indictment in Michigan, Arizona, Washington, Wyoming and California.[14]

On March 6, 2008, Briana Waters, who was arrested in Operation Backfire for another ELF attack in Washington State, was found guilty of two counts of arson[10] and sentenced later that year to six years in prison.[15]

And if you’re a gun owner, you must be a rightwing extremist.

“Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.”

So forget about the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front or PETA and their terrorist activities against Americans. Forget about Code Pink, whose leader Jodie Evans openly supported the terrorists in Iraq who are killing American soldiers and Iraqis. These are just a few examples. Instead, lets focus on a problem that doesn’t exist, because there are no left-wing terrorist groups.

What a country.

Related posts:

1. Health Care Recap, Life & Guns By Micah Clark This is What Change Looks Like It...
2. The Obama administration will now regulate your yard sale The return of spring brings the return of yard sales....
3. ABC – the “All Barack Channel” Fox News is reporting that ABC News is refusing to...