NC Amendment 1

April 3, 2012

The Baptists are leading the way on the defense of traditional marriage.  They held a conference last week on the importance of marriage to our society.  It included necessarily a religious viewpoint but also secular and practical reasons to defend marriage.

Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of North Carolina Values Coalition, said that “when marriage is redefined as genderless, there are legal consequences for anyone who disagree with it.”

“Everything from inheritance laws to property rights must then change,” she said. “If you disagree with this, you’re treated as a racist and as a bigot.”

Also the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Raleigh has weighed in – clearly and I think effectively – in favor of the amendment.

Bishop Burbidge Discusses Religious Liberty and Marriage Amendment

On May 8, 2012, voters in North Carolina will have the opportunity to make the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman part of the North Carolina Constitution.  On this week’s Catholic Perspective and Catholic Weekly, Bishop Michael F. Burbidge explains Catholic teaching on marriage and encourages the faithful to vote for the marriage amendment.  Bishop Burbidge also discusses the ongoing efforts to overturn the recent Department of Health and Human Services mandate requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.

Watch Catholic Perspective online (Windows Media)


Marx’ philosophy on display

March 24, 2010

Eulogy to Karl Marx

by E. Christian Brugger, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in Ethics

In his eulogy for Karl Marx deceased on March 14, 1883, his friend and fellow revolutionary Friederich Engels wishfully prophesized that Marx’s name “will endure through the ages, and so also will his work.”  Hardly could he have imagined that his friend’s social vision would suffuse common political dynamics in the United States a little over a century later; that the eminent Speaker of the House would play his handmaid and the powerful President his dupe.  The disaster that played out last weekend set the high water mark of Marx’s influence on our great country.  If we don’t see this we won’t understand recent events.  His name wasn’t mentioned and his rhetoric wasn’t explicit.  But his vision was alive: a reckless mendacity in the pursuit of goals; an almost savage disregard for democracy; a savioristic reliance on politics to transform the social order; and a forceful use of naked power as the principle of social change.

We witnessed the demonization of a class of people, the bourgeois in Marx’s scheme, the U.S. middle class, who from last summer have shouted a crescendoing “NO!” to a government health care revolution.  They were called Nazis, bigots, obstacles to progress; they were bullied by thugs, characterized as stupid, and censored by the liberal media.  Their reasons for opposing the revolution didn’t matter.  The mere fact of it placed them on the wrong side in the dialectic of history, so they needed to be opposed.  ‘What our fathers and our fathers’ fathers couldn’t do, we’ve accomplished against all odds.’  The ‘odds,’ of course, were the majority of honest Americans who naively still believed that their voices meant something in the political process.  They weren’t opposed to the end of securing decent health care for all.  They questioned the means that Liberal Democrats were proposing for achieving that end: an enormous extension of federal authority into a most delicate area of social concern, a massive surreptitious expansion of abortion liberties, fears of conscience violations, unjust rationing, the depersonalization of health care, offensive values from Washington D.C. filtering into Main Street America: “we’re just not sure we trust you, Government, with our health care; whatever you touch turns to gold—for you; but it complicates and disorders our lives.”  Over their heads the Democrats shouted: “the people deserve healthcare, and you’re trying to prevent it!”  In the Manifesto Marx writes: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, oppressor and oppressed, in constant opposition to one another.”  Marx’s simplistic ‘class struggle’ paradigm was the operative model for the healthcare debate.  The only reality is political; the only relevant question is who possesses and exercises power.  The proletariat, the marginalized, are the voiceless uninsured, oppressed by intolerant, religious, self-satisfied Americans.  Progressive change is necessary; neutrality in its regard is impossible.  This polarization was nowhere more clear than at the President’s so-called “health care summit” on February 25: ‘side with the Democrats and so with the poor, or with the Republicans against the poor.  Make your choice.  Get on board, or we’re leaving without you.’

No amount of deception was too great.  How many times in the past eight months did Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, Secretary Sebelius and President Obama look straight into the camera and proclaim: “The Hyde Amendment forbids federal funding for abortion.  That status won’t change under our bill”?  They knew the statement was false; how couldn’t they, after all, they were the bill’s authors?  But they counted on the credulity of their audience stemming from ignorance as to the bill’s actual content.  The sharpest screw was twisted last weekend with the fraudulent executive order meant to make people believe that Stupak’s pro-life demands had finally been conceded.  Again, smoke and mirrors, but no substance.  Kathleen Parker writes in today’s Washington Post: “The executive order … is utterly useless, and everybody knows it. First, the president can revoke it as quickly as he signs it.  Second, an order cannot confer jurisdiction in the courts or establish any grounds for suing anybody in court… The order is therefore judicially unenforceable.  Finally, an executive order cannot trump or change a federal statute.”  Don’t ever doubt the utility of the Nietzchian will to power operationalized in the Marxist schema.  It gets results.  But it also sows resentment.  Peace doesn’t follow.  People only get mad.  And people presently are very mad.

So what now?  As in the wake of Roe, we must begin a rear guard offensive.  After the President signed the bill into law on Tuesday, fourteen States attorneys general filed suit over the constitutionality of the legislation.  Find out if your State is one of them and support the effort.  Learn the provisions of the new law.  You will be forced to purchase insurance.  But at least one insurance carrier in each State exchange is required not to provide abortion coverage, which means the majority of carriers will.  Do your homework; find that carrier and support it.  Next, when your representatives come home for Spring break, tell them what’s on your mind.  Finally, polish your pointing finger for the November elections.

quoted in full from:

If you’re not mad you’re not paying attention.

Executive Order

March 21, 2010

We can only hope Mr Obama is as good as his word.

Text of Obama’s Planned Executive Order on Abortion

Here is the official text of the White House announcement and the planned executive order from President Barack Obama aimed at assuring antiabortion Democrats that federal money won’t be used to fund abortion under the health-care overhaul legislation.


Office of the Press Secretary


For Immediate Release                           March 21, 2010


Today, the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.

The President has said from the start that this health insurance reform should not be the forum to upset longstanding precedent.  The health care legislation and this executive order are consistent with this principle.

The President is grateful for the tireless efforts of leaders on both sides of this issue to craft a consensus approach that allows the bill to move forward.

A text of the pending executive order follows:

Though some folks are certain the Executive Order will not help prevent Federal Dollars from paying for abortions:

William Saunders: Democrats’ EO offer shows Obamacare does fund abortion

House actions on HC

March 8, 2010

Dems keep pressure on Stupak over healthcare bill and abortion concerns

By Jordy Yager – 03/07/10 12:34 PM ET

Abortion continued to loom Sunday as the thorny issue that could paralyze the momentum of healthcare reform efforts in the home stretch.
Across the Sunday morning shows, lawmakers took sides over whether the final healthcare bill contains language that would allow people receiving government subsidized healthcare to obtain an abortion, and a White House official accused abortion opponent Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) of being “misinformed” about the Senate bill.

But I don’t see where the article clearly explains this “pressure.”

Please everyone here write your congressman – your Representative but also your Senators.
The FRC contact website is good.
See this post for where we’ve said why
and this post where we show you how

The entire The Hill story is at:

One of the comments to the posted story is a great read. I think it gets its own post. To read it before I get it posted see:

Reconciliation by force

March 4, 2010

ObamaCare via forced reconciliation in the Congress is bad public policy.

The Senate Bill will fund a huge expansion of abortion funding in the United States.

Note this “reconciliation” process is not the right vehicle and the President and the Democrats know it’s not been used for this type of expansion of government ever before.  Don’t believe the Democrat’s line that it’s a tool that ‘the Republicans have used in the past for their agenda so we can too.’’

What we can do.

  1. If you have a Democratic Representative write them.  Specifically and clearly even bluntly tell them that if they vote for the reconciled bill that you will certainly vote Republican in the fall and vote for any other available Democrat in the primary elections coming up very soon.  This is especially true if your Representative is a “maybe”.  (I’ll try to post any stories I can find about the current “handicapping” on the hill as I find them.  I’d appreciate leads to this if you find any.)
  2. If you have a Republican Representative write them to thank them for their principled stand.

Speaker of the House Pelosi says that it’s the right thing to do:

“But the American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress.”

She’s wrong.  We don’t need it for ethical considerations for life and for government intrusion into our finances and our healthcare.

As to the politics and the minds of the American voter this is a wasteland of Government intervention that won’t work.  Those voters who don’t know this already will soon find out.  We will respond in the Congressional elections this fall.  The Wall Street Journal says it better than me:

The goal is to permanently expand the American entitlement state with a vast apparatus of subsidies and regulations while the political window is still (barely) open, regardless of the consequences or the overwhelming popular condemnation. As Mr. Obama fatalistically said after his health summit, if voters don’t like it, “then that’s what elections are for.”

In other words, he’s volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.

See the whole essay printed in yesterday’s WSJ:

See also two other good news article in the same edition:

AUL reports on Senate trick in the works

February 14, 2010

Americans United for Life writes:

Dear Friend of Life,

For months, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, and President Obama held secret meetings in an attempt to pass government-run health care that funded abortion. Then, after losing a Senate seat in Massachusetts and their filibuster-proof majority along with it, the Democrats publicly stated that they would work with Republicans on health care… but we have just learned their true intentions.

President Obama publicly called for a bi-partisan approach, even asking Republicans for an open televised session. But the truth has been exposed through news articles reporting that Speaker Pelosi’s top health care aide is telling insiders their real plan to get taxpayer-funded abortions.

Their secret plan is to pass two bills, using a procedure called reconciliation to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. One of the bills will be the pro-abortion Senate bill, which includes taxpayer funding for abortion. Then comes the trick…

Pelosi’s top health care aide said, “the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill… There’s a certain skill, there’s a trick, but I think we’ll get it done.” Given the Congressional leadership’s commitment to federal funding for abortion, you can be sure the trick will include abortion funding.

Once again we see that the will of the American people doesn’t matter, and the pro-abortion Congressional leadership will stop at nothing to force pro-life Americans to fund abortion with our tax dollars! We must keep up the pressure and make sure that they are stopped.

The pro-abortion lobby is salivating at the prospect of federally-funded abortions. According to Planned Parenthood, “we’ve never had a better chance” for a government takeover of health care and the funds for the largest expansion of abortion in America since Roe v. Wade.

This is outrageous. We all know that Washington politicians have a knack for saying one thing and doing another, but this takes duplicity to new heights. The stakes for protecting innocent life could not be higher and, as this news further demonstrates, the pro-abortion forces will stop at nothing to get taxpayer dollars for their work.

Fortunately, we know that a majority of Americans are pro-life, and together we will stand in strong opposition to taxpayer-funded abortions – regardless of any “tricks” pro-abortion members of Congress may have up their sleeve.

We’ve already learned of Planned Parenthood’s abortion “mega-mart” in Houston, Texas that could be a model for more large abortion centers around the country. The tragedy of this dramatic increase in innocent lives lost cannot happen. Will you stand with us to stop their efforts and stand for life?

AUL Yours for Life,
Charmaine Yoest
Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D.
President & CEO
Americans United for Life

Legislative Malice

February 12, 2010

Top Democrat Confirms Reconciliation on Table to Push Pro-Abortion Health Care

by Steven Ertelt Editor
February 12
, 2010 Washington, DC ( — A top Senate Democrat confirmed today that Democrats are going to push ahead with the plan to use the controversial reconciliation process to push through the pro-abortion health care bill. At minimum, they are using the idea as a means of trying to land some Republican support.

Reconciliation is a budget process the Senate can use to pass financial items on a majority vote by denying a filibuster.

With the House not supporting the pro-abortion Senate health care bill without major changes and a filibuster stopping the House bill in the Senate, the idea is to get the House to approve the Senate bill and another bill with changes while the Senate approves the bill with the changes on a majority vote.

The process would not appear to allow pro-life advocates any chance to stop the massive abortion funding in the bill or correct the other pro-abortion problems.

Read the entire article at: