Monday, November 30, 2009


Out of Canada comes this quote from Pajamas Media:

This year, a former Planned Parenthood executive director made national news after quitting her job. Abby Johnson watched an abortion on ultrasound and said on the Christian Broadcasting Network, “I saw that baby trying to get away from the probe that the doctor was using. … I just wanted to make it stop. … I could see it twisting and just saw it crumble. … I will never do this again.”

Although Johnson’s former employer tried to gag her, she revealed that Planned Parenthood ordered her to increase profits to the clinic by performing more abortions. “Abortion is the most lucrative part of Planned Parenthood’s operations,” she told WorldNet Daily. “Even though they’re two separate corporations, all of the money goes into one pot. With the family planning corporation really suffering, they depend on the abortion corporation to balance their budget, help get them out of the hole and help make income for the company.”

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Climate-change Lies

Now we have learned that leading climate-change scientists deliberately suppressed some data, used tricks to manipulate statistics, and conspired to keep their opponents' work out of scientific journals and conferences. It's true that the evidence was obtained illicitly-- by hackers who broke into a university's computer network. But the evidence of scientific misconduct is mountainous. In email exchanges, scientists boast of using "tricks" to skew statistical results, referred to professional colleagues as "idiots," and discussed the inconvenient bits of evidence they planned to hide. In one message that neatly sums up these researchers' attitude toward scientific objectivity, one scientist vowed to keep a critical piece out of circulation "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" The emails seemed to show ample evidence of scholarly misconduct: a "smoking gun," as many commentators put it. But one climate-change skeptic saidThe climate-change theorists have sustained a serious blow to their credibility. Yet it appears-- for now, at least-- that they will retain their dominance in the public discussion. The mass media have fully embraced the climate-change hypothesis, and now show no inclination to question it. (Diogenes points out that the New York Times has cited public opinion as the reason not to scrutinize the data more carefully.) The world's political leaders-- who are already planning sweeping policy changes in response to the supposition that mankind has caused climate change-- are not ready to second-guess their own premature conclusions.
In short, the climate-change hypothesis is popular among the people who control political affairs and public opinion. that metaphor was inadequate: "This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.” ...

From an article byPhil Lawler - Director,

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Thanksgiving Day

For what do we have to be thankful?

During the tense days of the Second World War many of our Hollywood stars, both men and women, gave generously of their time and talent to assist and to entertain our servicemen here and abroad. We know, for one, that Elsa Lanchester, British-born actress, frequently gave informal parties for servicemen in her Los Angeles apartment. As each of her guests was about to leave, she asked him to write his name and address in her Servicemen's Book, as she called it.
Toward the end of each party this charming lady of the screen would address her guests in a tone that showed unquestioning trust in God. She assured them: "I promise each one of you who will write his name in my book that I will pray constantly for your safe return. God will watch over you."

As the months rolled into years, a number of these soldiers, sailors, and marines returned. Many made it a point to stop and say sincerely, "Thank you, Miss Lanchester," before they took train for home. After their departure the actress would take out her Servicemen's Book, find the name of the one who had returned safe, and check it by writing beneath the boy's name the words, "Thank you, God."

She wanted to thank God for each safe return. She did it thoroughly and efficiently. She wanted to be sure that thanks were rendered in every case. She even wrote it down.
It would be a fine idea for every one of us to have a book like that, a book in which we could write the countless blessings we have received, a book where we could write beside each blessing, "Thank You, God.”

Such a procedure may seem prosaic and mechanical, yet it is much better than the opposite-never thanking God at all. If the plan would help us to be more grateful-let's try it. Try writing down the gifts God has be stowed on you today, yesterday, all last year. And then say, "Thank You, God," or write it down beside each benefit for which you should be grateful.
Let’s make a start:
Thank You, God that I can see. There are thousands who cannot see. For them there is no sunrise or sunset; no autumn colors, no rainbow tinted flowers, no movies, no delights of the eye.
Thank You, God that I can hear. There are thousands who cannot hear the voice of their own mother, nor the singing of the birds, nor a symphony, nor the laughter of children.
Thank You, God that I can walk. I know thousands who can't take a single step, thousands who are confined to a bed or wheel chair, other thousands of men who lost their legs in a war-who spend their years in I helpless dependence on the wavering kindness of others.
Thank You, God that I can work. Look at the many who can do nothing with brain or brawn or hands.

Thank You, God that I have something to eat. Millions as good as I, maybe better, have little or nothing to eat. Thousands are dying of hunger while I sit down to a Thanksgiving feast. Thank You, God, for the bumper crops of 2003. Our vast country could feed the world. In the breadbasket of America-Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska, there are mountains of golden wheat and pyramids of golden corn, Your gifts. Help us, O God to get this food, Your food, to Your hungry children.

Thank You, God, for my Catholic Faith, which teaches me to be thankful. Thank You, God, for freedom to worship You as You wish to be worshipped. Thank You for our beautiful churches, our faithful priests, our comfortable Catholic homes.
Thank You, God, for the privilege of attending Holy Mass and receiving Holy Communion. Thank You for all the sacraments and for the life of grace in my soul.

Thanks for the trees and thanks for the birds; thanks for a drink of refreshing water; thanks for the open roads and thanks for our Churches where I can stop and visit You; thanks for that meal and thanks for that restful sleep; thanks for friends and thanks for the roof over my head; thanks for the chance to do Your work and thanks for Your generous rewards; thanks for the wine and thanks for the wheat and thanks for the Body and Blood of Your Son; thanks for the urge and chance to pray and thanks for the pains You permit; thanks for the opportunity to learn all about You, from our Catholic papers, from pamphlets, from magazines and books.
No book or library of books is large enough to record Your blessings and Your gifts. Where can I find the pen or the power or the eloquence or the words or the endurance to thank You, God, for all Your gifts? They are without limit.
Every leaf and every star is a gift. Every kernel of corn and every shaft of wheat and every drop of rain and every blade of grass is a gift. How can I ever thank You for it all?
Your gifts are without limit. My thanks must be without limit. How can I render infinite, limitless thanks?

Holy Mass is an infinite prayer and sacrifice of thanks, a limitless act of gratitude. I will offer Holy Mass; I will attend Holy Mass, especially on Thanksgiving Day. That is how I will say again and again:

"Thank You, God, thank You." Amen.

In Corde Jesu,
Victor R. Claveau, MJ

Monday, November 23, 2009

The Counter-Cathedral in the Castro.

San Jose Pastor Visits Most Holy Redeemer for Advice

In the August 24 article “Fr. Reese Comes to San Francisco: What Most Holy Redeemer Has come to Mean,” California Catholic Daily discussed the consequences of “tolerating” an openly homosexualist parish. The article noted that when in San Francisco, dissenters such as Bishop Kevin Dowling, Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese, or Bishop Thomas Gumbleton make a beeline for Most Holy Redeemer. It has become San Francisco’s counter-cathedral, famous worldwide. The article also pointed out that such visits are not harmless. They certify the presence of a separate center of teaching authority in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, a counter-cathedral--at least when the subject is homosexuality. This is obvious to everyone who is not willfully blind; right now there is a student at Notre Dame University writing a paper on the “theology” of Most Holy Redeemer Church--as if a genuine Catholic parish could have its own theology! Allowing such a separate teaching authority to exist is proving to be a monumental failure of responsibility by the Archdicese of San Francisco, and predictable consequences have followed.

The current (November 18) issue of “Metro Active San Jose” has a long article called “Gay Catholics Come Out” by Ms. Jessica Fromm. The subheadline is “Secretly, San Jose is the most gay-friendly diocese in the nation. And now, one parish wants the world to know.”

The article profiled St. Julie Billiart Parish in San Jose and its pastor, Fr. Jon Pedigo. Ms. Fromm spends the first 3000 words or so discussing the situation in San Jose. It’s a familiar litany: the difficulty homosexualist Catholics have in accepting Church teaching on the reality of marriage and the intrinsic immorality of homosexual acts, how conflicted they are between their personal experience and the teaching of the Church (who isn't?) etc. etc. She interviews a familiar cast of characters: the former Jesuit priest James B. Nickoloff, who is same-sex “married” in the state of Massachusetts and is now a fellow at the (Jesuit) Santa Clara University; the Oakland Diocese’s Fr. Jim Schnexayder, co-founder of the Catholic Association for Lesbian & Gay Ministry; Mr. Bill Welch, former President of Dignity San Jose.

More importantly, Ms. Fromm relates what Fr. Pedigo did when he realized that many same-sex attracted Catholics were attending his parish:

“Pedigo said that as he started to notice the growing LGBT Catholic community that was coming to St. Julie's, he decided to consult the established gay Catholic community at the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco's Castro District.” Instead of seeking advice from his bishop, Fr. Pedigo chose to consult MHR. That’s our point: MHR has become a de facto teaching authority--that’s why Fr. Pedigo consulted them, that’s why the Notre Dame student is writing a paper on their “theology." The Church hierarchy may deny that MHR has any actual authority, but Fr. Pedigo and others think they do, and are basing their actions on MHR‘s example.

Ms. Fromm continued, quoting Fr. Pedigo: "I said, 'Look, I'm a server in San Jose, and I have all these gay and lesbian people coming for baptism and wanting their babies to be baptized and raising their kids and their families Catholic. And we've got kids in the youth group who are sexual.' I asked, 'What do you guys do about this? What have you done?'"

What has Most Holy Redeemer done? It’s the church that from 2000-2008 hosted nearly-annual events by s/m groups in their parish hall; it's the church that allowed the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to receive the Blessed Sacrament; it’s the church that currently has at least six openly “same-sex married” parishioners serving at Mass as lectors, Eucharistic ministers, and acolytes; it’s the church whose Eucharistic minister/transgender activist “Lisa Rae” Dummer escorted the Young Adult Group to the 2007 Transgender Cotillion; it’s the church whose pastoral council member Matt Dorsey earlier this year condemned Archbishop Niederauer in the pages of the homosexualist Bay Area Reporter for his support of Proposition 8 and convinced the producers of San Francisco’s gay pride parade to award the Archbishop the “pink brick.”

According to Ms. Fromm, Fr. Pedigo has proved to be a good student: “From that time (when he consulted MHR) forward, Pedigo has freely acknowledged and supported the gay and lesbian Catholics who flock to St. Julie's. He publicly opposed Prop. 8, going so far as to post video interviews with gay Catholic families on his blog….”

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

American Overwhelmingly Oppose Obamacare.

From Rasmussen polling:

"Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.

Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Catholic Higher Education in California. Is there any hope? YES.

On November 13, Pope Benedict spoke to the faculty and students of the Libera Universita Maria Santissima Assunta in Rome. His Holiness addressed the “true mission of the universities today” and expressed his ongoing concern that higher education is in crisis. He noted the specific role to be played by Catholic universities, and said they are called to act “…with fidelity to the Christian message exactly as it is presented by the Church.”

What is the state of Catholic Universities in California? Do they meet the standards the Holy Father has set forth? Do they act “with fidelity to the Christian message exactly as it is presented by the Church”? Almost uniformly, no.

On the very day the Holy Father spoke, two law professors from the Jesuit Loyola Marymount College published an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle urging both the Senate and President Obama to remove the Stupak amendment from any healthcare bill--thus undercutting the work of every Catholic bishop in the United States on the premier human rights issue of our time.

It’s not just a few professors. Look at the donations made last year for or against Proposition 8 by the faculty of California’s four largest Catholic Universities. The figures are overwhelming: at the Jesuit Loyola Marymount College: 25 donations against Prop. 8, 1 in favor. The Jesuit University of San Francisco: 22 donations against, 1 in favor. The San Diego University: 15 donations against, 2 in favor. The Jesuit Santa Clara University: 34 donations against, 2 in favor.

Can teachers transmit the Catholic understanding of something so basic as the family when they do not believe marriage is a natural relationship between one man and one woman, but is rather a creation of human convention? Such teachers are acting from a fundamentally different understanding of reality than that of the Church. The Church says: man is a creature, created by God, with a purpose defined by God. Man is limited. The secular (and now ostensibly Catholic) universities say: Man is not a creature but is a self-creating entity, a reality creating entity. Any “purpose” ascribed to man is limiting, thus oppressive, thus intolerable. So any discrimination against virtually any action is perceived as injustice. Indeed, for many young people today, the words discrimination and injustice are synonymous. After all, you too are a reality creating entity---create any reality you want, just don’t infringe on my right to create my own reality. A striking example is the presence in the four “Catholic” universities mentioned of groups devoted to “transgender rights” that is, for the right of individuals to decide for themselves which sex they belong to. But that is just the logical unfolding of the underlying principle to its end. It is a denial not only of the Christian but also of the Classical understanding of man dating back at least to Plato. It is what Pope Benedict has called “the dictatorship of relativism,” but instead of combating it, these schools embrace it.

There are some bright spots. Because the challenge is both theological and philosophical, the work of Berkeley’s Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology stands out. The DSPT offers a Masters program in both philosophy and theology. At a recent talk at Holy Family Cathedral in Anchorage, Alaska, Fr. Michael Sweeney, President of the DSPT said:

“What is unique to our School is that we are the only seminary on the continent at which someone can, in three years, receive the Master of Arts degree in both philosophy and theology. This is of enormous benefit for someone who plans, for example, to pursue a doctorate in philosophy or theology, in that he or she will have real academic credential in the other field. It also affords the possibility of a concentration of study that requires the integration of both disciplines.”

The school has about 60 full time students. It also has about 30 part time students from other schools affiliated with Berkeley’s Graduate Theological Union, who want a decent philosophical training.

The 2008 report of the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education had this to say about the DSPT:

“The Visitation confirmed that the School’s academic program is excellent, with the students receiving a substantially complete grounding in dogmatic and moral theology. The faculty is both academically prepared and doctrinally sound….The students seem to know the issues involved in the contemporary crisis of subjectivism and moral relativism, and are adequately trained to provide a response based on reason and affirming the existence of moral and philosophical truth.”

"Moral and philosophical truth!" Unsurprisingly, and unlike the schools described above, the Dominican School is generally in need of money. It is an excellent institution for faithful Catholics to support.

To learn more about the Dominican School of Philosophy, go here.

To find out how you can contribute, go to “Support DSPT.”

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

AP: Kennedy Says Bishop Tobin Banned Him From Communion


"Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin has banned Rep. Patrick Kennedy from receiving Communion, the central sacrament of the church, in Rhode Island because of the congressman's support for abortion rights, Kennedy said in a newspaper interview published Sunday.

The decision by the outspoken prelate, reported on The Providence Journal's Web site, significantly escalates a bitter dispute between Tobin, an ultra orthodox bishop, and Kennedy, a son of the nation's most famous Roman Catholic family.

'The bishop instructed me not to take Communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me Communion,' Kennedy told the paper in an interview conducted Friday.

Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him 'that I am not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that I've taken as a public official,' particularly on abortion.

He declined to say when or how Tobin told him not to take the sacrament. And he declined to say whether he has obeyed the bishop's injunction."

The article also quotes Michael Sean Winters of "America" Magazine:

"It's really bad theology," said Winters, who opposes abortion. "You're turning the altar rail into a battle field, a political battlefield no less, and it does a disservice to the Eucharist."

That's crazy. You're supposed to be free of serious sin before going to communion. How can an unrepentant pro-abortion politician be free of serious sin?


Well, well. Turns out Bishop Tobin urged Kennedy to stop receiving the Blessed Sacrament over two years ago:

"Tobin urged Kennedy not to receive communion in a February 2007 letter, a portion of which was released publicly by Tobin's office Sunday.

'In light of the Church's clear teaching, and your consistent actions, therefore, I believe it is inappropriate for you to be receiving Holy Communion and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so,' Tobin wrote. "


Canon lawyer Ed Peters weighs in.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Senate Bill Will Pass, Pro-Life Amendment Probably Impossible

The AP reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has the 60 votes neede to move the Senate's version of Obamacare forward.

This is the bill the Bishops have called "unacceptable" and Richard Doerflinger has called the worst pro-abortion bill yet.

For the bill to be amended to include something like Stupak, 60 votes will be required. Experts say that is almost certainly impossible.


Especially read the last quote from 1802.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

'If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.'-Mark Twain

Friday, November 20, 2009

WOW! 22,000 Young People in Eucharistic Procession in KC!

From Jack Smith at "The Catholic Key"

Go to "The Catholic Key" for more and bigger pictures, and Jack's report on the event.

USCCB: Senate's is "Worst Bill So Far" on Abortion

From the AP:

"At the White House on Thursday, health reform director Nancy Ann DeParle praised Reid's effort to find a compromise on abortion

was carefully worked through by the leader, who cares a lot about making sure this maintains the status quo on abortion policy," DeParle told reporters. Obama has said he wants the bill to remain neutral on abortion, and DeParle said Reid struck just the right balance.

But Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' conference Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Reid's "is actually the worst bill we've seen so far on the life issues."

He called it "completely unacceptable," adding that "to say this reflects current law is ridiculous."

Call your Senator. Go to or call 202-224-3121. Tell them to oppose this bill by voting "NO" on Cloture this Saturday.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Why we MUST Tell Our Senators to Vote NO!

Frank Cannon, writing in "The Corner" about the choice facing ostensibly pro-life Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania:

"If he votes for cloture on the motion to proceed on the health-care bill, he will be making possible the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade, and mandating that all citizens participate through federal funding. Senate majority leader Harry Reid needs all 60 Democratic senators to bring the legislation to the floor and make it the order of business. So Senator Casey has the fate of the bill completely in his power. If he adds his vote, that will mean that any effort to add the pro-life Stupak language from the House bill will require 60 pro-life votes, which, as Senator Casey knows, are not there. Casey’s original vote to proceed will have stacked the deck against defending life."

Get it? Go to or call 202-224-3121 to ask your senators to vote NO on the "Motion to Proceed."

The Fundamental Transformation of America

(Forwarded to me by a good friend)
When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist, people said it didn't matter.
When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama, People said it didn't matter.
When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims, people said it didn't matter.
When he wrote in another book he authored “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” people said it didn't matter.
When he admittedly, in his book,said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, people said it didn't matter. When he traveled to Pakistan , after college on an unknown national passport, people said it didn't matter.
When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate, people said it doesn't matter.
When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology, people said it didn't matter.
When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator", people said it didn't matter.
When the Palestinians in Gaza , set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign, people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record supported gun control, people said it didn't matter. When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn't matter.
When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.
When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn't matter.
When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn't matter.
When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn't matter. When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry,people said it didn't matter.
When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn't matter.
When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn't matter.
When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition people said it didn't matter.
When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues,people said it didn't matter.
When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn't matter.
When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him,people said it didn't matter.
When the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn't matter.
When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist, people said it didn't matter.
When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else,people said it didn't matter.
When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialist, people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs with out family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting,people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.
When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist, people said it didn't matter.
When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,people said it didn't matter.
When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and trade as the nations largest tax, people said it doesn't matter.
When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn't matter.
When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn't matter.
When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn't matter.
When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel , our long time friend, People said it doesn't matter.
When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it doesn't matter.
When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians,People said it doesn't matter.
When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win, people said it didn't matter.
When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off,people said it didn't matter. When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn't matter. When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc.people said it didn't matter. When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government,people said it didn't matter. When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control,people said it didn't matter. When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade,people said it didn't matter.
When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State , people finally woke up........ but it was too late.
Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But.... when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. Before you disavow this, do an internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ? Personally, I like happy endings.
If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist. There are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation. Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the internet.
Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth?
Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free. Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia, Iran; no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC

Reid's Senate Health Care Bill Contains Monthly Abortion Premium for Taxpayers

Stop the Senate Bill in its tracks. Right now it looks like the "Motion to Proceed" will be voted on this Saturday. Go to or call 202-224-3121 to ask your senators to vote NO on the "Motion to Proceed."

Our post title is Steve Ertelt's headline in this morning's LifeNews:

Washington, DC ( -- House Republican Leader John Boehner says the new health care bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled yesterday contains a monthly abortion premium that taxpayers will be forced to pay. His analysis follows that of pro-life groups that say the bill contains massive abortion funding.

"Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new 'abortion premium' fee on Americans in the government-run plan," he notes....

"Section 1303(a)(2)(C) 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 health plan and for those who are given an affordability credit to purchase insurance coverage that includes abortion through the Exchange. The Commissioner must charge at a minimum $1 per enrollee per month," Boehner said today.

Senate Healthcare Bill Unveiled: Barbara Boxer Loves It

LifeSiteNews reports:

"'Senator Reid did an excellent job of crafting language that maintains the decades long compromise of no federal funds for abortion,' gushed Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Boxer has a consistently 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL."

So does Lois Capps:

"'Rep. Capps, another 100% NARAL-approved legislator and author of the House's phony compromise, praised Reid's language and noted that it 'closely mirrors my language' in the original House bill.

The same legislators had lambasted the Stupak language as 'illogical, discriminatory, and unnecessary' (Capps) and a 'very radical amendment which would really tear apart compromise" (Boxer)."

SF Archdiocesan Paper Whitewashes SF's CCHD Scandal

The November 20 issue of Catholic San Francisco, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, has both an article about the CCHD's funding missteps and a long letter to the editor from Ms. Monica Landeros, associate director of the Office of Public Policy and Social Concern at the Archdiocese. The article is on the front page and Ms. Landeros letter is on page 12.

You will read the entire article and letter without learning that two of the most egregious examples of CCHD-funded groups are right here in San Francisco. You would also not learn from Catholic San Francisco that the two groups, the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association made national news. You would also not learn that the CCHD was forced to pull its grants from these groups only a few weeks ago. In fact, from reading Catholic San Francisco, you would never learn anything about the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association at all. They are not mentioned in any issue of the newspaper.

That's using a newspaper to try and hide news instead of publishing news. It's a foolish strategy in the age of the internet.

Ms. Landeros letter to the editor is even worse. She repeats the CCHD's "For the Record" talking points which have already been debunked, but we will gladly do so again. Ms. Landeros states:

"All grant applicants are thoroughly screened and funds are only provided to those groups and projects with objectives that are clearly in line with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. If evidence of non-compliance is discovered at any point during the term of an organization’s grant, they will be defunded immediately, and all monies will be returned to the Campaign."

Obvious question: if all groups are "thoroughly screened" how did the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Organization end up getting funding? And Ms. Landeros cannot simply blame the CCHD. The CCHD's guidelines, published on November 11, 2008, clearly state:

"CCHD’s current (emphasis in original) criteria and guidelines prohibit partisan activity and funding of any group that engages in activities contrary to Catholic moral teaching, whether or not those activities are funded by CCHD."

So someone at the Archdiocese did not do their job in properly vetting the Young Workers United and Chinese Progressive Association. Instead of writing a self-justifying letter, Ms. Landeros should be apologizing to the parishioners whose hard-earned money ended up going into the collection basket for such groups.

Ms. Landeros could say, well, we made a mistake. But she doesn't. Addressing the issue of unacceptable local groups receiving CCHD funding, she writes:

"Locally, the Campaign has been attacked for funding two of our organizations."

But wait. Are those organizations the two we have mentioned, which were defunded? No. Nowhere in her letter is there an apology for funding, or even a mention of, the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Organization. The two groups Ms. Landeros chooses to mention are one called "Nuestra Casa" and the San Francisco Organizing Project. And with her mention of the San Francisco Organizing Project Ms. Landeros goes into fantasy land:

"The San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) is a community organizing group that has always maintained a strong relationship with our office and the Archbishop. SFOP has not engaged in any activities contrary to Church teaching. Most recently, SFOP has worked to expand access to health care to children and low-income communities. SFOP is fully aware of the Catholic Church’s position on health care, and they in no way support or endorse funding for abortion or any other life issue that would be contrary to the Church’s teaching."

That's not only false, it's stupid, because the falsehood has already been exposed. We repeat that last sentence:

"SFOP is fully aware of the Catholic Church’s position on health care, and they in no way support or endorse funding for abortion or any other life issue that would be contrary to the Church’s teaching."

1) Simply visit the webpage of the San Francisco Organizing Project. It's "Healthcare" page boasts of "winning" $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center.

2) Now simply visit the "Youth Services" page of Mission Neighborhood Health Center. It boasts that its Teen Clinic offers "emergency contraception," which will sometimes be abortion, to young women. (Added bonus: follow the links to "Reliable Health Information" at the bottom of the "Youth Services" page).

3) Just in case anyone is a little slow, that means: yes, the SFOP does support funding for abortion and other life issues contrary to the Church's teaching. Not only do they support it, they delivered it.

There were other letters on this issue sent to the editor of the CSF this week. None were published. I know this, because one of them was from me. Here it is:


On October 30, 2009, every parish in the United States was sent a letter by the US Catholic Bishops regarding HR 3962, the healthcare bill passed on November 7. The letter directly requested that priests and parishioners tell their representatives that unless the bill specifically removed funding for abortion, the bill must be opposed. The Bishops thus articulated a clear moral hierarchy--healthcare is good, but if the cost of healthcare is funding abortion, the evil outweighs the good.

Unfortunately, that same moral clarity is not being applied within Catholic institutions. On the weekend of November 21-22, the Archdiocese has mandated a second collection for the California Campaign for Human Development. For the past 5 years, right here in San Francisco, the CCHD has funded a group called the San Francisco Organizing Project. The website of the SFOP lists 20 Catholic Churches, and the Archdiocese itself, as either “organizing committees” or “partners.” The same SFOP website also boasts that it “won $200,000 for the “Mission Neighborhood Health Center.” Well, the MHNC offers “emergency contraception”-- which, depending on the circumstances, may in fact be abortion. The MNHC also offers referrals to other “reliable” health organizations, the first of which is called the “Center for Young Women’s Health,” whose “contraception” webpage directs young women to Planned Parenthood. Other referrals are to equally objectionable organizations.

The Archdiocese is obligated to apply the same clear moral standards to its own behavior that it applies to members of congress. Why then are they partnering with, and devoting parishioner’s money to, a group that supports “emergency contraception”? Why is the CCHD, which for five years has funded the SFOP, being allowed to take up a second collection from parishioners?"

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

A Response to the CCHD’s “For the Record” Report

The recent exposes of the funding missteps by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development have provoked the organization to issue a November 13 “For the Record” response. We reported on the CCHD’s funding problems in the Archdiocese of San Francisco on September 22 and November 11. In responding to the CCHD’s report, we confine ourselves to those instances we had previously covered.

We begin by quoting from the CCHD’s own funding guidelines, specified in the very first paragraph of the “For the Record” report:

“All grant applicants are carefully screened and funds are provided only to projects with objectives and actions that are fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church. The local CCHD diocesan director and national grants staff evaluate every proposal. Every project recommended for funding requires endorsement by the local bishop.”

But it is obviously not true to say: “All grant applicants are carefully screened and funds are provided only to projects with objectives and actions that are fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.“ If that were true, the CCHD would not have to write on page 4 of the report:

“ALLEGATION: The Catholic Campaign for Human Development funded Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association, both of whom produced voter guides which took a position contrary to Church teaching.

FACT: After a joint investigation with the Archdiocese of San Francisco, CCHD determined both organizations in question had in fact produced voter guides that included positions contrary to Church teaching. CCHD immediately cancelled both grants, and both organizations returned all of the funding they received from CCHD.”

Here the CCHD is trying to spin the issue, and doing so in an embarrassingly inept manner. First, that the CCHD funded the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association, is not an “allegation,” it is fact, printed on the CCHD’s own 2009-10 “Grantees” page. Secondly, examine the “Fact” entry: “A joint investigation"? What they mean is, somebody from the CCHD or the Archdiocese of San Francisco looked at the groups’ websites. We did that “investigation” ourselves--it took about 90 seconds. But note that the CCHD admits it did fund groups not “fully in accord with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church,” thus giving the lie to their statement in the report’s very first paragraph.

We all make mistakes. The point is to learn from them. Is there any sign the CCHD has done so? No. Examine the entry for the ongoing funding of the San Francisco Organizing Project on page 3. The CCHD justifies the ongoing funding with this non-sequiter:

“The Archdiocese of San Francisco strongly supports the work of the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) to expand access to health care to children. Both Archbishop Levada and Archbishop Niederauer have spoken at SFOP events; SFOP has met regularly with Archdiocesan staff to coordinate work on health care access and other issues that affect the poor and immigrant families.”

Consider: two groups funded based on a recommendation from the Archdiocese of San Francisco just had to have their grants pulled. And what does the CCHD use to justify its ongoing funding of the SFOP? A recommendation from the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Nobody is that stupid by accident.

But worse than that, the statement is deliberately deceptive. It does not even mention the reason why CCHD’s funding of the SFOP was newsworthy. It does not mention that the SFOP, funded by the CCHD, “won” $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center-- an organization which, right on its webpage, tells young women it will provide them with “emergency contraception.” Once again, the CCHD is violating its own funding guidelines.

Why such a transparent whitewash? Simple: The CCHD’s nationwide second collection is this weekend, and they want to squeak through.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Bishops Release Letter on Marriage

And they get right to the heart of the objection to same-sex "marriage":

"Attempting to redefine marriage to include [same-sex] relationships empties the term of its meaning," it says. Thus, "It would be a grave injustice if the state ignored the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the place of mothers and fathers, and especially the rights of children, who deserve from society clear guidance as they grow to sexual maturity."

"Indeed," the letter continues, "without this protection the state would, in effect, intentionally deprive children of the right to a mother and father."

An identical point was made last year in the "Marriage Matters to Kids" video.

The full document is here.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

61% Say NO to Taxpayer-Funded Abortions: CNN

Via LifeNews:

The new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released today shows 61 percent oppose taxpayer funding of abortions while just 37 percent are supportive.

But will the Senate care?

CNN has the poll here.

Monday, November 16, 2009

To Stop Federally Funded Abortion, We've got to Stop the Senate's Bill

There may be enough votes to prevent the Senate's heathcare bill from proceeding this week, but there will not be enough votes to add a Stupak-like amendment, once the bill has proceeded to the amendments stage.

That's the analysis by Steve Ertelt at LifeNews and by the Family Research Council.

Hence the best, and perhaps only chance to prevent federally funded abortions, paid for by you, is to stop the bill at the "Motion to Proceed" stage.

From Steve Ertelt's article:

Washington, DC ( -- The first vote on the Senate version of the government-run health care bill, which is expected to include massive abortion funding, has been pushed back to later in the week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will need 60 votes for his Motion to Proceed, which will begin the health care debate in the Senate.

The Motion to Proceed is needed to proceed with consideration of the Senate bill, which will be substituted for the House version as soon as the motion as approved....

Sen. Tom Harkin, an abortion advocate whose committee adopted one of two Senate health care bills that funds abortions and that Reid will merge into one final bill, which has yet to be unveiled, predicted Reid will get his 60 votes.

However, instead of a Tuesday vote, Harkin said the motion would be pushed back to Thursday or Friday.

As a result, Harkin said senators will not begin considering amendments to the health care bill until lawmakers return from the Thanksgiving recess next week.

When they do finally vote, they will likely consider an amendment similar to the Stupak amendment in the House that would de-fund virtually all abortions under the bill.

However, as has reported, it appears the pro-life side will not have enough votes for the amendment, which Harkin's and another committee defeated. As a result, pro-life lawmakers and groups will likely shift to a strategy of trying to delay and defeat the bill outright.

In an alert emailed to its members this afternoon, the Family Research Council warned that "the Senate could begin debate on the health care bill this week without any guarantee the government will not pay for abortions."

FRC fears Reid will not keep the Stupak amendment in the Senate version of the bill....

Mr. Ertelt closes his article with:

"ACTION: Go to or cal 202-224-3121 to ask your senators to vote no on the Motion to Proceed."

We completly agree.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Obama Reveals True Colors: Federally Funded Abortion on Demand!

We've been saying right from the beginning that ANY healthcare "reform" coming out of THIS Congress and THIS Administration will result in federally funded abortion. Congress passed the Stupak amendment passed, but it's like nothing ever happened.

From Steve Ertelt at LifeNews:

Obama Will Remove Abortion Funding Ban From Health Care Bill, Advisor Says

Washington, DC ( -- Top Obama advisor David Axelrod on Sunday confirmed what pro-life advocates already suspected would happen. He said President Barack Obama will work with congressional Democrats to remove the abortion funding ban the House approved in its version of the government-run health care bill.

Axelrod says that, because the Stupak amendment allegedly goes beyond the status quo under the Hyde amendment (which bans abortion funding under Medicaid),
Obama will make sure the amendment is yanked during the conference committee....

"The only thing that will prevent the health care bill from being 'an abortion bill' is precisely the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, as the House of Representatives recognized by a 46-vote margin," (Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee) said.

"The phoniness of Obama's claim that he has been trying to preserve the 'status quo' on abortion policy should be evident to any observer by now. In reality, the White House and top Democratic congressional leaders have been working hard to create a national federal government health plan that would fund abortion on demand, just as Obama promised Planned Parenthood," Johnson added.

Coverage from other news sorces can be found here.

Washington DC & Catholic Charities: Just Say NO!

We've been a little behind on covering the story out of Washington DC.

DC is telling Catholic Charities that if it does not (as Fr. Z says) "do things which are morally repugnant and contrary both to Scripture and the natural law" DC will no longer be willing to do business with Catholic Charities. Liberals are trying to spin this as if Catholic Charities is willing to deny help to the poor.

I don't think if DC city funding dries up, DC Catholics will all of a sudden stop helping the poor.

But speaking from our experience in San Francisco, we'd advise the Archdiocese of Washington DC to "just say NO" to the city's money, and tell them we'll take care of the poor on our own, thanks. We rehash for the umpteeth time the San Francisco experience, because it is an excellent lesson:

In 1997 Catholic Charities of San Francisco (CCCYO) acceded to providing domestic partner benefits in order to keep city contracts.

By 2000, CCCYO was placing adoptive kids to same-sex households.

By 2005, CCCYO had an openly homosexual Director of Programs and Services, who was also serving on the board of Family Builders by Adoption, (PDF 1MB) "the gayest (adoption) agency in the country" (their words).

By 2006, CCCYO, in order to keep city funding, partnered with Family Builders, thus staffing and funding a group committed by contract to increasing the number of children placed in LGBT households.

By 2007, CCCYO had (and still has) an openly same-sex married lesbian serving on their board, and as their treasurer.

In June 2009, responding to ongoing protests, CCCYO cancelled the partnership with Family Builders and no longer engages in any adoptions work. In August, 2009 CCCYO's erstwhile partner Family Builders was caught advertising for adoptive "dads" on the s/m & porn pages of homosexualist websites.

None of this just randomly happened. In 2006-07 CCCYO got over 60% ($20,525,272) of it's operating revenue in the form of government contracts. When that happens, you'd better believe politicians will call the tune. That does not mean CCCYO disagreed with the tune. It does mean that pressure from the outside coupled with strategically placed decision makers on the inside produced results like domestic partners benefits and homosexual/ transgender adoptions.
We hope the Archdiocese of Washington DC and every other Diocese in the country will learn from the San Francisco experience.

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Friday, November 13, 2009

Chicago Archdiocese Complains About CCHD Critics

Today Matt C. Abbot published a letter from the Archdiocese of Chicago Office of Peace and Justice and the Campaign for Human Development. The full letter can be found here. The authors (Rey Flores, Program Director, Catholic Campaign for Human Development; Nicole Wooldridge, Program Assistant, Catholic Campaign for Human Development; Nicholas Lund-Molfese, Director, Office for Peace and Justice; and Adrienne Curry, Program Director, Catholic Relief Services) object to the recent revelations about CCHD’s funding practices. The content of the letter, if that word can be used, can be summed up in this excerpt:

“Recently, CCHD has come under attack from certain groups whose motivations and objectives are rooted in partisan politics, rather than faithfulness to Catholic teaching and concern for the poor."

Putting the judgment of motives in the first clause of that sentence aside, we note that the letter itself has no substance--it is simply a complaint so vague as to be meaningless. “Certain groups"--but no one is named. The letter also describes objections to CCHD’s funding practices using the words “erroneous, inflammatory, deceitful, lies”--but no erroneous, inflammatory, deceitful, or lying statements are ever quoted. The letter is simply wind. Read it for yourself. As we will show, that’s quite a contrast to those of us who have been working on the CCHD story.

Let’s recap:

Our first article on CCHD funding appeared in the California Catholic Daily on September 22, 2009. On the same day, we covered the story on “A Shepherd’s Voice.” We had discovered, independently of the more comprehensive investigation by the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development had been funding two groups here in San Francisco who supported and engaged in activities contrary to the teaching of the church, and thus in violation of the CCHD’s own funding guidelines. Those groups were the Young Workers United and the Chinese Progressive Association. We named these groups, exactly described the objectionable activities in question, showed where they violated the CCHD’s own funding guidelines, and indicated to readers where they could examine the evidence themselves. We also PDF’d the original documents, and will be happy to send them to anyone who asks. Subsequent to our and the BVM’s report, the CCHD stopped funding these two groups.

The Bellarmine Veritas Ministry’s more comprehensive report uncovered other examples of CCHD funded groups engaged in activities in opposition to church teaching, and thus in violation of the CCHD’s own funding guidelines. There was nothing insubstantial about their work: they were not “making charges,” they were providing incontrovertible documentary evidence. Names, dates, activities. Nothing vague about it, anyone can check it.

This week, they uncovered another group right here in San Francisco, the PICO affiliated “San Francisco Organizing Project” which “won” $200,000 for the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, a group that provides “emergency contraception.” Following the BVM’s lead, on November 11, we covered the story in the California Catholic Daily, followed by a slightly longer version the same day in "A Shepherd's Voice." In addition to the information uncovered by the BVM, we had learned that the Mission Neighborhood Health Center, through their “reliable health information” page, directs young women to a site that recommends Planned Parenthood. We also showed that the MNHC’s “reliable health information” page also directs young people to websites thoroughly in conflict with Catholic teaching. Once again, we provided links, so that any reader could see the evidence themselves.

Quite a contrast to the letter from the Chicago Archdiocese.

h/t "Curt Jester"

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Italians to European Union: "CHI VI CREDETE DI ESSERE!"

Or: Who do you think you are?

The decision by a court of the European Union to order Italian schools to remove the crucifix from classrooms is producing some happy results. How our Lord turns all things to good! On November 10, Antonio Gaspari published an article in called "In Defense of the Crucifix, Italy Awakens!" Signor Gaspari reports on the response that is sweeping Italy, with just a few examples (translating from Italian):

• In Montecchio Maggiore in the province of Vicenza, Mayor Milena Cecchetto and the council bought and installed a one-meter high crucifix in city hall.

• In Cittadella in the province of Padua, Mayor Massimo Bitonci placed an ancient wooden cross in city hall.

• In Florence, city councilwoman Mark Cordone visited a clssroom with "a flashy crucifix" around her neck and a t-shirt saying "do not touch the crucifix!"

• In Leonessa in the province of Rieti, Mayor Paolo Trancassini signed an order forcing all classrooms to display the crucifix.

• In Piacenza, Mayor Fabio Callori did the same.

• In Gavirate, a businessman named Giorgio Feraboli got together with his employees and they spent $1,200 Euros to build and install a twenty foot high cross in the factory courtyard. They also added lighting so it could be seen at night.

• In Tuscany, a students organization contructed 100 crucifixes and placed them in every classroom.

• The Archbishop of Bologna said to remove the crucifix is to remove "the chance to marvel at man's dignity and a sure sign the barbarians have returned."

These insane actions of the EU will end up forcing Europeans to start thinking about Christianity again. Lovely to see the devil's tools being used against him!

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Strongly Indicated in New Chinese Study

I've been hesitant to comment on the long debated abortion-breast cancer link because the science is over my head, so I would never know how to weigh the competing claims. But two recent studies have changed my mind. The first was a study in Turkey published earlier this year. It showed that women who had abortions had a 66% increased risk for breast cancer.

Today, another study, this one from China, shows that women in China who have abortions have a 17% higher incidence of breast cancer. From Steve Ertelt at Life News:

"Beijing, China ( -- Chinese researchers have issued a new study indicating women who have had abortions face a 17 percent higher chance of contracting breast cancer than women who carried their pregnancy to term. One leading American scientist says he believes the increased risk is even higher.

Peng Xing and his colleagues conducted a case-control study in northeast China examining reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer.

They found a statistically significant overall odds ratio of 1.17 (17% increased breast cancer risk for all subtypes combined) among women who had induced abortions.

The study excludes the possibility of a flaw called "report bias" because abortion isn't stigmatized in China. Communist officials frequently require women who violate the one-child family planning policy there to have abortions so Chinese women are considered reliable reporters of their abortion histories.

Xing and his colleagues also found an increased risk of breast cancer for women who delayed their first full-term pregnancy, a frequent phenomenon among women who have an abortion of their first baby.

Professor Joel Brind of Baruch College maintains that the Chinese study underestimates the risk of abortion because of its high prevalence in China.

In his review of 10 prospective studies on the ABC link for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons in December, 2005, Professor Brind explained that it's hard to do an epidemiological study accurately in communist countries where exposure to abortion affects most of the study population.

"In the study, the prevalence of abortion is quite high at about 56% overall in this population," he said.

"Because abortion is so prevalent in the population, women in the small, unexposed population (the comparison group) are a minority group and do not represent a typical population," he explained. "Rather, they're atypical because they represent a high-risk subgroup."

"Women without abortions in China are more likely to be childless or to have late first full-term pregnancies, which are accepted risk factors for breast cancer," Brind added.

Earlier this year, a Turkish study reported a statistically significant 66% increased risk for women contracting breast cancer after having an abortion."

The Turkish study was published in the World Journal of Surgical Oncology, here. The LifeNews story continues:

"Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, says both studies show that, when honest research is conducted outside the control of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and other Western governmental agencies or organizations tethered to abortion ideology and politics, the truth emerges that abortion raises risk.

"The Chinese and the Turkish studies are relevant considering the debate over government-funded abortion through healthcare reform," she told "Government-funded abortion means more dead American women from breast cancer."

Malec says studies reporting no abortion- breast cancer link have been proven in medical journals to be stupendously flawed.

Xing P, Li J, Jin F. A case-control study of reproductive factors associated with subtypes of breast cancer in Northeast China.” Humana Press, e-publication online September 2009."

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

Cultural suicide

I have long maintained that political correctness is a major concern of our present civilization.

“Political correctness” writes Lorne Gunter in the National Post “will be the death of Western civilization because unlike our earlier forms of pluralistic tolerance, PC is wilfully blind to the lack of reciprocal tolerance in other cultures.

“Indeed, the more others hate us, the more PC denies their hatred.

“The most disturbing aspect of last week's Fort Hood shootings -- aside from the horrendous loss of life, of course -- has been the triumph of political correctness in the analysis of Maj. Nadil Hasan's motives. Many "experts" have assiduously avoided the obvious cause: Hasan's fundamentalist, radicalized Muslim views.”

Tell it like it is: a terrorist attack led by a confirmed radical Muslim.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The CCHD, PICO, and the Archdiocese of San Francisco

A slightly shorter version of this article appeared in this morning's California Catholic Daily.

SF Archdiocesan Partner Raised Funds for Group Offering “Emergency Contraception"--"San Francisco Organizing Project” Also Hopes to Honor Nancy Pelosi

On October 30, 2009, every parish in the United States was sent a letter by the US Catholic Bishops in reference to HR 3962, the healthcare bill passed last Saturday by Congress. The letter directly requested that priests and parishioners tell their representatives that unless the bill specifically removed funding for abortion, the bill must be opposed.

But that same clear moral distinction is not being applied within Catholic institutions. On September 3, 2009, California Catholic Daily reported on the infiltration of the Church by the “community organizing” group PICO and its affiliates. One PICO affiliate mentioned was the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP). At that time we noted “22 Catholic churches are listed on the website of the San Francisco Organizing Project, and the archdiocese is listed as ‘a partner.’”

In September, the Bellarmine Veritas Ministry revealed that a number of groups being funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development had acted in direct opposition to Church teaching--and thus to the CCHD’s own funding guidelines. The BVM report caused the CCHD to pull funding from some of these groups. Last week the BVM issued a new report. The new report revealed that one group still being funded by the CCHD, and which shouldn’t be, is the San Francisco Organizing Project: “This PICO affiliated grantee has been funded by the CCHD for at least five years for a variety of projects. However, they have given major support to health clinics which provide family planning and emergency contraception services to both adults and minors.”

The BVM report continued: “The SFOP lists several major accomplishments in the health care field including ‘Won $200,000 for Mission Neighborhood Health Center and Excelsior Clinic for Women and Children. Saved Excelsior Clinic and the public pharmacy at SF General Hospital.’”

The Mission Neighborhood Health Center’s webpage states: “Our Teen Clinic offers Sensitive Services that are FREE and CONFIDENTIAL for all young people of all genders from ages 12 to 21. Services offered cover sexual and reproductive health…” The services then listed include “emergency contraception” (which can be early-term abortion) and “general counseling and referrals.” What kind of referrals? The Mission Neighborhood Health Center provides a series of links to “reliable health information.” The very first link provided is to the “Center for Young Women’s Health,” whose “contraception” page directs young women to Planned Parenthood. Other links provided by the Mission Neighborhood Health Center include (which hosts the sponsored link “Buy Condoms Online“), (“’Law and Order’ episode about Dr. George Tiller insults his legacy“), and (“Birth Control Bingo” and “The Bees and the Bees…a Homosexuality Primer for You“). The Mission Neighborhood Health Center also informs readers “If you are a young person over the age of 12, you can register for Teen Clinic services on your own, without the consent of an adult.”

The SFOP webpage also includes an announcement for their 2010 “Soul of the City” fundraiser. The announcement expresses the hope that the fundraiser will be held on February 21, but cautions “this date may change as we are working with Speaker Pelosi’s office to ensure her presence…” This past Saturday, Speaker Pelosi voted to include funding for abortion in the recently passed Congressional Healthcare bill--in direct opposition to the clear directive of the
bishops. The SFOP slideshow also features admiring pictures of openly homosexual San Francisco Supervisors Tom Ammiano and Bevan Dufty, both of whom voted for Resolution 168-06, which condemned the Catholic Church as hateful and discriminatory.

While some of the services provided by the SFOP may be good, some of the provisions in the recently passed Congressional health bill were good, too. That did not stop the bishops from saying that no matter how well-intentioned some of the provisions in the bill were, if the bill provided funding for abortion, it must be opposed. Why then, are Catholic churches, and a Catholic Archdiocese, duespaying members of the San Francisco Organizing Project, which boasts of raising $200,000 for an organization that provides “emergency contraception” and which refers young women (albeit at one remove) to Planned Parenthood? And why are the bishops pushing a nation-wide second collection this month for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, which for five years, has funded the San Francisco Organizing Project?

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

"Obama as Solomon"

How I love the Catholic blogosphere! Nice post yesterday by Jeff Miller at "The Curt Jester." Excerpts:

"Obama as Solomon"

"I must admit it is nice to hear the President of Planned Parenthood complain about the Bishops....

Though the reaction is rather strange. Anger at the amendment of the bill that was not suppose to fund abortion in it any way. The normal two faces of politicians were once again asserting two things 1) This bill does not fund abortion 2) The Amendment goes too far in not allowing funding of abortion....

"Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funded abortions, the president said, "There are strong feelings on both sides" about an amendment passed Saturday and added to the legislation, 'and what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo.'... "

"What? Oh wait the translation says 'I oppose the Stupak-Pitts amendment because it does exactly what I said I wanted.'

This is a step down for the President to go from messiah to Solomon. Sorry you can not both please God and Satan and you cannot please both sides of the abortion debate. Though there is a parallel with Solomon. Solomon said he would split the baby in two. In this debate there is one side that has no problem with splitting the baby in two or for that matter a hundred pieces. And there is a side who would protect the baby. Once again we know which side is telling the truth. "

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Bishop Tobin Calls Rep. Patrick Kennedy to Repentance


"Over the weekend, the Rhode Island congressman (Patrick Kennedy) sided with abortion advocates in voting against the Stupak amendment, which barred the use of federal funds from paying for most abortions in the House’s health care reform legislation."

The article then quoted from Bishop' Tobin's letter to Kennedy:

"[I]n confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

This reminds me of Father Malloy's open letter to Nancy Pelosi, which he wrote nearly three years ago (January 14, 2007) and which retains it's force and point. Nancy Pelosi also voted against the Stupak amenment.


Nancy, you are fooling yourself and I fear fooling many good Catholics You are simply not in sync with the Catholic Church and until you change your non-Catholic positions should stop calling yourself Catholic. Your record shows that you support embryonic stem cell research, planned parenthood, contraception, family planning funding, allowing minors to have an abortion without parental consent, and are against making it a crime to harm a fetus, etc. etc.

The fact that you favor married priests and women priests certainly would not classify you as conservative, but here is your answer to the question: “Are you a conservative Catholic?”

“I think so. I was raised, in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, than that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.” (National Catholic Reporter, 1-22-03) That sounds fair and tolerant, but
your record belies high moral standards.

The NARAL rates you 100% pro-abortion. Your statement in Newsweek Magazine (10-23-06): “To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, [then] don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities. My family is very pro-life. They’re not fanatics and they’re not activists. I think they’d like it if I were not so vocally pro-choice.”

We elect politicians to make laws that help people honor their responsibilities, such as protecting life itself. Can politicians tell someone else not to kill? I fail to understand why you can favor partial birth abortion. How can you explain that it is proper to bring a baby part way out of the birth canal and then stick a scissors in its head to suck out the brains? Is it possible that votes mean more to you than life itself?

Yes, Nancy, we would all like it if you were not so vocally pro-choice , i.e. pro-death. Until your choice is in line with Catholic doctrine, please, Nancy, do not receive the Eucharist when you attend Mass.

–Rev. John Malloy, SDB"

Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney


Nice post from Tom Peters this morning. Scientists have found that:

"'In the first days of their lives, French infants already cry in a different way to German babies...

In this study, the scientists compared recordings of 30 French and 30 German infants aged between two and five days old. While the French newborns more frequently produced rising crying tones, German babies cried with falling intonation.

The reason for this is presumably the differing intonation patterns in the two languages, which are already perceived in the uterus and are later reproduced.'

Or to put it in simple English: before they are even born, babies start learning from their mommies."