Righteous Thunder from Down Under!
From Australian ABC News:
"A priest has been sacked from a Brisbane church after a long-running feud with the Vatican.
St Mary's Roman Catholic Church at South Brisbane has been accused of performing unorthodox mass and not respecting the church hierarchy.
The Archbishop of Brisbane, John Bathersby, previously warned Father Peter Kennedy to stop flouting church rules or face the sack.
St. Mary's of Brisbane is known far and wide for, among other things, blessing homosexual relationships and attempting to perform baptism "in the name of the creator, redeemer, and sanctifier."
In a letter received on Friday, Archbishop Bathersby said Father Kennedy and 'the community have not budged an inch'.
It says Father Kennedy's appointment will be terminated on February 21, unless he resigns first.
Good for His Excellency!
Father Kennedy says he is considering his options.
'I've been here 28 years and I know this community is solidly behind me, and so we could go elsewhere,' he said."
Please do.
Lots of background to this story can be found here, or visit Father Z.
Doesn't sound to me like they are doing anything too different from Most Holy Redeemer here in San Francisco.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
'Catholic' Sebelius to lead HHS?
From the AP:
WASHINGTON – Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was near the top of President Barack Obama's list of candidates to head the Health and Human Services Department, a senior administration official said Saturday.
Back in May of 2008 we (and many faithful Catholics) commended Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, when he said that Governor Sebelius' positionon abortion "constitutes a scandal to the faithful." The good Archbishop further said the Governor should no longer receive communion.
As his brother Bishop, Bishop Martino said recently of Senator Robert Casey:
"I remind you that your responsibilities as a Catholic bound by the faith of the Church exceed even those of your office."
If in fact Sebelius is appointed head of the Department of Health and Human Services, it will be interesting to see Archbishop Naumann's response.
WASHINGTON – Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was near the top of President Barack Obama's list of candidates to head the Health and Human Services Department, a senior administration official said Saturday.
Back in May of 2008 we (and many faithful Catholics) commended Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, when he said that Governor Sebelius' positionon abortion "constitutes a scandal to the faithful." The good Archbishop further said the Governor should no longer receive communion.
As his brother Bishop, Bishop Martino said recently of Senator Robert Casey:
"I remind you that your responsibilities as a Catholic bound by the faith of the Church exceed even those of your office."
If in fact Sebelius is appointed head of the Department of Health and Human Services, it will be interesting to see Archbishop Naumann's response.
Suspension for Invitation
National Healthcare systems can be a menace to the health—spiritual health-- of the patients.Our liberal leaders are trying to impose that system on our country. Congress is considering bills to spend billions of dollars on children's health coverage—the beginning of national healthcare—which will remove our liberty, lesson our health options and open up situations as told in the following story from London:
LONDON, FEB. 5, 2009 (Zenit.org).- A Baptist nurse, suspended for offering to pray for a patient, received a show of support from medical and religious organizations. The British Daily Mail reported Tuesday that Caroline Petrie has been backed by patients as well as chaplains of the hospital where she is employed.While the chaplains have asked for new guidelines regarding the spiritual care of patients from the national health system, the Christian Medical Fellowship said that the treatment of Petrie can be considered "religious discrimination."The 45-year-old nurse, a mother of two, faces disciplinary action from being accused of failing to show a commitment to equality and diversity. She could be fired for asking an elderly patient if she would like her to pray with her.The patient in question, May Phippen, 79, said she did not feel offended, but rather commented in passing to another nurse that she found it strange, and that it could be offensive for other patients.Petrie said that her offer of prayer was her way of saying "get well soon." She said, "I don't think I've done anything wrong. I was just trying to let a patient know that I was thinking of them. It's just my way of saying [it]."
LONDON, FEB. 5, 2009 (Zenit.org).- A Baptist nurse, suspended for offering to pray for a patient, received a show of support from medical and religious organizations. The British Daily Mail reported Tuesday that Caroline Petrie has been backed by patients as well as chaplains of the hospital where she is employed.While the chaplains have asked for new guidelines regarding the spiritual care of patients from the national health system, the Christian Medical Fellowship said that the treatment of Petrie can be considered "religious discrimination."The 45-year-old nurse, a mother of two, faces disciplinary action from being accused of failing to show a commitment to equality and diversity. She could be fired for asking an elderly patient if she would like her to pray with her.The patient in question, May Phippen, 79, said she did not feel offended, but rather commented in passing to another nurse that she found it strange, and that it could be offensive for other patients.Petrie said that her offer of prayer was her way of saying "get well soon." She said, "I don't think I've done anything wrong. I was just trying to let a patient know that I was thinking of them. It's just my way of saying [it]."
Friday, February 6, 2009
Jesuit Superior General visits USF
The Jesuit Superior General Adolfo Nicolas visited the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco on Thursday. He celebrated Mass, which USF streamed on their website. You can watch it here.
The USF webpage also reports he held a press conference, and we look forward to to seeing that, too. We wonder if any of the reporters present asked him how he felt about celebrating Mass with Fr. Cameron Ayers, pastor of St. Agnes Church in San Francisco (circled):
The USF webpage also reports he held a press conference, and we look forward to to seeing that, too. We wonder if any of the reporters present asked him how he felt about celebrating Mass with Fr. Cameron Ayers, pastor of St. Agnes Church in San Francisco (circled):
(Photo courtesy USF video stream)
Because here is Fr. Ayers leading his congregation at the 2005 San Francisco Gay Pride Parade:
(Photo courtesy qdomine.com) To see the video this photo is taken from, go here (caution: obscenity alert!)
We also wonder if any of the reporters asked him what he thought of Fr. Ayers donating $100 to the "No on Proposition 8" campaign, after every Bishop in California urged their parishioners to volunteer for, contribute financially to, and vote for, Proposition 8:
_______________________________________________________
We also wonder if any of the reporters present asked Father General about USF's Executive Director of University Ministry, Fr. Donal Godfrey. Fr. Godfrey was at the Mass, too (circled):
(Photo courtesy USF video stream)
Because here is Fr. Godfrey marching in the 2003 San Francisco Gay Pride Parade:
(Photo courtesy Most Holy Redeemer website.)
Fr. Godfrey also came out against Proposition 8. But that was relatively restrained, for him. To get a feeling for just how wacky the Executive Director of University Ministry can get, listen to this audio from Australian ABC Radio on the occasion of the "Acceptance" counter-meeting to World Youth Day in 2008. ("Acceptance" is an Australian version of "Dignity.") Or, read these excerpts from his history of Most Holy Redeemer Church.
We look forward to reading the transcript of Father General's press conference. We hope USF publishes it soon.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Most Holy Redeemer UPDATE
During Lent and Advent, MHR often has guest speakers at their vespers services. Interesting guests!
From the Most Holy Redeemer Parish Bulletin of February 8, 2009:
"Rev. Glenda Hope will be our speaker on Feb. 25"
From the Most Holy Redeemer Parish Bulletin of February 8, 2009:
"Rev. Glenda Hope will be our speaker on Feb. 25"
Who is the Rev. Glenda Hope?
She is a Presbyterian Minister here in San Francisco. According to the Bay Area Reporter's "Wedding Announcements" page, she celebrated the "marriage" of two men on August 30, 2008.
According to the National Center for Lesbian Rights, she also filed a Friend of the Court Briefing, supporting the overturn of Proposition 8.
We cite for the umpteenth time, from the USCCB Statement "Catholics in Political Life":
"The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
Now, admittedly having the Rev. Hope as a Lenten Vespers speaker is not "honoring those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" if the "our" in the sentence is taken to mean the parishioners and staff at Most Holy Redeemer. She is only acting in defiance of "our" moral principles if the "our" refers to the Catholic Church. As Fr. Donal Godfrey, SJ, the Executive Director of University Ministry at the Jesuit University of San Francisco says in his book "Gays and Grays: the Story of Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church:"
“The Catholic Church is not a credible moral voice within the gay community.” p153
Probably some new readers of "A Shepherd's Voice" think we are being hyperbolic when we say: "Most Holy Redeemer is not a Catholic Church with gay members. It is a gay spritual institution where the organizing experience is not Catholicism, but the celebration of homosexuality." But it is the simple truth. Click this link for the evidence
Or, to see what kind of guests they host, visit the "Ecumenism at MHR" page over at the "Homosexual Activism in the Archdiocese of San Francisco" website.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Adult Stem-Cell Update
Here is a report about a man whose Muliple Sclerosis was treated with his own stem-cells. It is from the Journal of the American Medical Association:
We ask, for the umpteenth time, are Californians having second thoughts about shelling out $3 billion+ in taxpayer dollars to fund immoral Embyronic Stem-Cell Research which has yet to cure a hangnail, while adult stem-cells are curing people left & right?
And President Obama, please do your homework.
H/t Don Margolis
We ask, for the umpteenth time, are Californians having second thoughts about shelling out $3 billion+ in taxpayer dollars to fund immoral Embyronic Stem-Cell Research which has yet to cure a hangnail, while adult stem-cells are curing people left & right?
And President Obama, please do your homework.
H/t Don Margolis
A Bishop Lays Down the Law
The Curt Jester posts a letter from Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton to Senator Robert Casey of Pennsylvania. Here is the introduction to the letter from the website of the Diocese of Scranton:"In a letter to Sen. Robert P. Casey, Bishop Joseph F. Martino condemned the vote taken by Sen. Casey against an amendment to a bill which would have prohibited millions of U.S. tax dollars from going to organizations abroad that provide and promote abortion.
The Martinez Amendment to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would have reinstated the Mexico City Policy rescinded by President Obama on Jan. 23. The amendment was defeated in a vote of 60-37."
And here are the closing paragraphs of His Excellency's letter:
"...It is my deepest wish, Senator, to convince you of the necessity of rescinding your vote on the Martinez Amendment. It is the height of irony that this amendment was defeated while the Senate passed legislation to provide health insurance for children who would otherwise be without it. What hypocrisy offers health insurance to children in one part of the world when children in another part will be deprived, by the stroke of the same pen, of their first breath?
I recognize and respect the burdens that you bear as a United States Senator; however, I remind you that your responsibilities as a Catholic bound by the faith of the Church exceed even those of your office. Your failure to reverse this vote will regrettably mean that you persist formally in cooperating with the evil brought about by this hideous and unnecessary policy.
As I have done several times before, I offer to make myself available to you to discuss the grave concerns that I raise here.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.Bishop of Scranton"
Bishop Martino is a giant. A Bishop who takes the demands of the faith seriously and demands that we do so as well.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
"Catholic San Francisco" and Proposition 8
Back on December 18, 2008 I posted on Catholic San Francisco's publishing of a letter from two men who proudly proclaimed in their second sentence that they were same-sex "married." They then proceeded to take Archbishop Niederauer to task for his defense of natural marriage.
In response, I sent this letter to Catholic San Francisco, but it wasn't published:
"With the December 19 letter from Michael Vargas and Martin Bednarek, outright scandal is published in the pages of Catholic San Francisco. Messrs. Vargas and Bednarek have not only unilaterally decided that homosexual actions are not sinful, they proudly declare they are married.
Messrs. Vargas and Bednarek are parishioners of, no surprise, Most Holy Redeemer in the Castro. But they are more than parishioners. Mr. Vargas serves as a lector, and as of 2007, Mr. Bednarek was a member of the music ministry. This is not unusual at MHR. There are at least five other parishioners who have “married” their same-sex partners and who serve at Mass as either lectors, Eucharistic ministers, or acolytes at the church. There is nothing hidden about any of this--it’s all public record. The parish willfully disregards Church teaching whenever it conflicts with the celebration of homosexuality. I’ll substantiate that statement in the pages of CSF at any time.
I thank His Excellency for his support of Proposition 8. But what good does that do if the Archdiocese accepts same-sex “married” persons serving in its own ranks? The salvational mission of the church is far more important than any state law. What does this say to a same-sex attracted Catholic, struggling to live his or her life according to the church’s teaching on sexuality and marriage? Such persons do exist, and the continuing Archdiocesan tolerance of MHR scandalizes them in the purest sense of the word."
Then, in the January 9 edition of the paper, they published two more letters in the same vein.
Again I responded, and again my response went unpublished:
"Since the passage of Proposition 8, it seems a new weekly feature has appeared in Catholic San Francisco: letters to the editor from same-sex attracted “Catholics” (and not only Catholics) attacking the bishops of the Church for doing their jobs.
A few weeks back it was a same-sex “married” couple upbraiding the Archbishop. The January 9 edition included a letter from A. M. Bowling asking: “If it is true, as the Archbishop asserts and I believe, that ‘all people are God’s children and are unconditionally loved by God,’’ then why does the Church treat some of us differently?” That is about the opposite of the truth. It is some same-sex attracted Catholics who are demanding to be treated differently. While claiming to seek nothing but equality, they are in fact demanding a privileged position for the commission of their habitual sin—demanding it not be called what it is: a sin.
There is also a letter from Daishin Sunseri, past member of the “Gay Buddhist Fellowship,” advising us to deepen our “self-awareness.” Good advice is always welcome, I guess, although why CSF keeps publishing letters from people who share neither Catholic morals nor belief is kind of a mystery. Perhaps the idea is that a free exchange of ideas is good. But the Church is not a debating society—Jesus established it for our salvation. There’s no sense in an Archdiocesan newspaper giving equal time to the promotion of sin.
The letter from Daishin Sunseri was especially interesting, because it content suggested that the author was a person outside the faith looking in. Googling the author's name brought up "gaybuddhist.org" as the first result. It turns out Daishin Sunseri is (or was) a well-known member of that organization. So, the author of a letter attacking the Catholic Church is a same-sex attracted man who is not a Catholic. Now, that "investigative reporting" took me about 4 seconds. Was that too much effort for the editors of Catholic San Francisco? Is it too much to ask that the editors of a "Catholic" newspaper refrain from publishing letters from non-Catholics attacking the Catholic faith?
________________________________________________
Fast forward to the January 30, 2009 issue of the paper. The editors chose to run a column by Sr. Eloise Rosenblatt. According to the credit below the column she is a Sister of Mercy as well as an attorney in private practice. (Whatever happened to Sisterhood being a vocation?)
Sr. Rosenblatt is also quite well-known. I've posted about her here, when she was a scheduled speaker at the 2008 "Northern California Lay Convocation" held at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco. The Northern California Lay Convocation was a "Call to Action" seminar in all but name. Sr. Rosenblatt also spoke at the 2005 West Coast Call to Action conference. California Catholic Daily has reported on her activities here, here, and here.
What jumped out at me from her column of last week was this sentence:
"Authentic Christian teaching reverences the body, supports marriage commitments, and promotes attentive, mutual love of spouses for each other."
Christian teaching does not support "marriage commitments," it supports marriage. Now, why would anyone swap the ambiguous term "marriage commitments" for the word marriage? That change of "marriage" to "marriage commitments" has only one effect--it deliberately undermines Church teaching by degrading marriage to the level of other commitments. Given the current battle the Church is fighting in defense of natural marriage, such a change in definition is what we would expect from our enemies. And it is also what we would expect from a person who has spoken at Call to Action conferences, because Call to Action supports same-sex "marriage." (see here and here)
I repeat the question that was in both my unpublished letters to the editor: why are such deliberate attacks on Church teaching permitted in an Archdiocesan newspaper?
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
In response, I sent this letter to Catholic San Francisco, but it wasn't published:
"With the December 19 letter from Michael Vargas and Martin Bednarek, outright scandal is published in the pages of Catholic San Francisco. Messrs. Vargas and Bednarek have not only unilaterally decided that homosexual actions are not sinful, they proudly declare they are married.
Messrs. Vargas and Bednarek are parishioners of, no surprise, Most Holy Redeemer in the Castro. But they are more than parishioners. Mr. Vargas serves as a lector, and as of 2007, Mr. Bednarek was a member of the music ministry. This is not unusual at MHR. There are at least five other parishioners who have “married” their same-sex partners and who serve at Mass as either lectors, Eucharistic ministers, or acolytes at the church. There is nothing hidden about any of this--it’s all public record. The parish willfully disregards Church teaching whenever it conflicts with the celebration of homosexuality. I’ll substantiate that statement in the pages of CSF at any time.
I thank His Excellency for his support of Proposition 8. But what good does that do if the Archdiocese accepts same-sex “married” persons serving in its own ranks? The salvational mission of the church is far more important than any state law. What does this say to a same-sex attracted Catholic, struggling to live his or her life according to the church’s teaching on sexuality and marriage? Such persons do exist, and the continuing Archdiocesan tolerance of MHR scandalizes them in the purest sense of the word."
Then, in the January 9 edition of the paper, they published two more letters in the same vein.
Again I responded, and again my response went unpublished:
"Since the passage of Proposition 8, it seems a new weekly feature has appeared in Catholic San Francisco: letters to the editor from same-sex attracted “Catholics” (and not only Catholics) attacking the bishops of the Church for doing their jobs.
A few weeks back it was a same-sex “married” couple upbraiding the Archbishop. The January 9 edition included a letter from A. M. Bowling asking: “If it is true, as the Archbishop asserts and I believe, that ‘all people are God’s children and are unconditionally loved by God,’’ then why does the Church treat some of us differently?” That is about the opposite of the truth. It is some same-sex attracted Catholics who are demanding to be treated differently. While claiming to seek nothing but equality, they are in fact demanding a privileged position for the commission of their habitual sin—demanding it not be called what it is: a sin.
There is also a letter from Daishin Sunseri, past member of the “Gay Buddhist Fellowship,” advising us to deepen our “self-awareness.” Good advice is always welcome, I guess, although why CSF keeps publishing letters from people who share neither Catholic morals nor belief is kind of a mystery. Perhaps the idea is that a free exchange of ideas is good. But the Church is not a debating society—Jesus established it for our salvation. There’s no sense in an Archdiocesan newspaper giving equal time to the promotion of sin.
The letter from Daishin Sunseri was especially interesting, because it content suggested that the author was a person outside the faith looking in. Googling the author's name brought up "gaybuddhist.org" as the first result. It turns out Daishin Sunseri is (or was) a well-known member of that organization. So, the author of a letter attacking the Catholic Church is a same-sex attracted man who is not a Catholic. Now, that "investigative reporting" took me about 4 seconds. Was that too much effort for the editors of Catholic San Francisco? Is it too much to ask that the editors of a "Catholic" newspaper refrain from publishing letters from non-Catholics attacking the Catholic faith?
________________________________________________
Fast forward to the January 30, 2009 issue of the paper. The editors chose to run a column by Sr. Eloise Rosenblatt. According to the credit below the column she is a Sister of Mercy as well as an attorney in private practice. (Whatever happened to Sisterhood being a vocation?)
Sr. Rosenblatt is also quite well-known. I've posted about her here, when she was a scheduled speaker at the 2008 "Northern California Lay Convocation" held at the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco. The Northern California Lay Convocation was a "Call to Action" seminar in all but name. Sr. Rosenblatt also spoke at the 2005 West Coast Call to Action conference. California Catholic Daily has reported on her activities here, here, and here.
What jumped out at me from her column of last week was this sentence:
"Authentic Christian teaching reverences the body, supports marriage commitments, and promotes attentive, mutual love of spouses for each other."
Christian teaching does not support "marriage commitments," it supports marriage. Now, why would anyone swap the ambiguous term "marriage commitments" for the word marriage? That change of "marriage" to "marriage commitments" has only one effect--it deliberately undermines Church teaching by degrading marriage to the level of other commitments. Given the current battle the Church is fighting in defense of natural marriage, such a change in definition is what we would expect from our enemies. And it is also what we would expect from a person who has spoken at Call to Action conferences, because Call to Action supports same-sex "marriage." (see here and here)
I repeat the question that was in both my unpublished letters to the editor: why are such deliberate attacks on Church teaching permitted in an Archdiocesan newspaper?
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Sad News
Amy Welborn, our blogger friend, sends this sad announcement.
November 16, 1958-February 3, 2009
Michael (Dubruiel) collapsed this morning at the gym and was not able to be revived despite the efforts of EMTs and hospital personnel.
We are devastated and beg your prayers.
Many thanks for all of the prayers and notes. It is overwhelming. Many have asked what they can do of a material or concrete nature. All I can say is to simply buy his books. Not from me, because I am in no position to fill orders, but from anywhere else. He long ago promised God that he would give all the royalties of The How To Book of the Mass to the children’s college funds, which he did faithfully. It is in good shape because of that. Buy them, read them, and give them away to others. Spread the Word. That is what he was all about. (Ignatius Press carries the books.)
The last lines of Michael's last column published in the Diocesan Paper:
"None of us knows what the future holds, but hopefully we can embrace what is inscribed in our coinage, 'In God we Trust.'”
Words to live and die by.
Obama Voters, Please Note
Unfortunately too many Catholics were blindsided by Obama’s promise of less abortions. We now face, with the Obama appointments, “the most Culture of Death, anti-family Justice Department ever.”
Here are just four of the far "lefties":
David Ogden, who argued for Planned Parenthood, abortion “rarely causes or exacerbates psychological or emotional problems.” “The few women who do experience negative psychological responses after abortion appear to be those with preexisting emotional problems,” he continued. He argued that evidence shows abortion is more likely to make women “experience feelings of relief and happiness” and claimed childbirth and childrearing or adoption may pose “concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects” compared to the effects of abortion.”
What a big fat lie!
President Obama has also chosen Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen raises red flags for pro-lifers because she is a former counsel to the pro-abortion rights group NARAL
The nominee for Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, is reportedly a lesbian who strongly opposed the Solomon Amendment, which denies federal grants to institutions of higher education that forbid military recruitment or the Reserve Officer Training Corps from campus.
Thomas Perelli, the nominee for Associate Attorney General, is the second person pro-life and pro-family advocates are concerned about. Perelli is best known for representing the husband of Terri Schiavo in his effort to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the severely injured woman.
” Leonard Leo, former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee Catholic Outreach, predicted that President Obama’s Justice Department may give the green light to culturally radical positions on abortion funding, conscience protection issues, same-sex “marriage,” other abortion-related issues, and end-of-life issues.
Lord, help us elect protectors of life!
Information courtesy California Catholic Daily News
Here are just four of the far "lefties":
David Ogden, who argued for Planned Parenthood, abortion “rarely causes or exacerbates psychological or emotional problems.” “The few women who do experience negative psychological responses after abortion appear to be those with preexisting emotional problems,” he continued. He argued that evidence shows abortion is more likely to make women “experience feelings of relief and happiness” and claimed childbirth and childrearing or adoption may pose “concomitant (if not greater) risks or adverse psychological effects” compared to the effects of abortion.”
What a big fat lie!
President Obama has also chosen Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen raises red flags for pro-lifers because she is a former counsel to the pro-abortion rights group NARAL
The nominee for Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, is reportedly a lesbian who strongly opposed the Solomon Amendment, which denies federal grants to institutions of higher education that forbid military recruitment or the Reserve Officer Training Corps from campus.
Thomas Perelli, the nominee for Associate Attorney General, is the second person pro-life and pro-family advocates are concerned about. Perelli is best known for representing the husband of Terri Schiavo in his effort to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the severely injured woman.
” Leonard Leo, former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee Catholic Outreach, predicted that President Obama’s Justice Department may give the green light to culturally radical positions on abortion funding, conscience protection issues, same-sex “marriage,” other abortion-related issues, and end-of-life issues.
Lord, help us elect protectors of life!
Information courtesy California Catholic Daily News
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Hamas Rallies in MINNESOTA
Powerline has the story, including this video:
The Powerline author notes that Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison attended the rally, and asks the question:
"How did Minnesota get to the point where its state capitol can become an outpost of a terrorist organization from the Middle East? Until a few years ago, I wouldn't have believed it possible."
Whatever the answer to that question is, the answer to the problem is: deport, deport, deport.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
The Powerline author notes that Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison attended the rally, and asks the question:
"How did Minnesota get to the point where its state capitol can become an outpost of a terrorist organization from the Middle East? Until a few years ago, I wouldn't have believed it possible."
Whatever the answer to that question is, the answer to the problem is: deport, deport, deport.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Monday, February 2, 2009
Americans Disagree with Obama's Abortion Action
Gallup reports:
"....Obama's decision to reverse the prohibition on funding for overseas family-planning providers may be the least popular thing he has done so far. This was an executive order that forbade federal government money from going to overseas family-planning groups that provide abortions or offer abortion counseling. Fifty-eight percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's decision to lift this ban, while only 35% approve of it. The ban on federal funds to these groups was put in place by Ronald Reagan, but lifted by Bill Clinton. George W. Bush re-instituted the ban after taking office in 2001, but Obama has once again lifted it.
The abortion and Guantanamo Bay prison decisions are especially unpopular among Republicans; only 8% approve of the former and 11% of the latter. But these are also the least popular decisions among independents and Democrats as well, though a majority of Democrats still approve of both.
It's good the American people oppose this policy, but will that matter? It's critical psychologically for the Democrats to support abortion all the time. To admit anything is wrong with abortion is to admit that the unborn child is a person. Once you've acquiesced in 49 million+ abortions, you'll do anything to prevent that possibility from enetring your conciousness.
Still, it's possible, so I'm sending the following letter. Join me!
President Barack Obama
Dear Mr. President,
A Gallup Poll of January 28-February 1, 2009 showed that 58% of Americans disagreed with your reversal of the prohibition on taxpayer funding for overseas family planning providers that provide abortion or abortion counseling.
Mr. President, in light of this, I strongly ask and encourage you, in the name national unity, to reinstitute this ban.
Gibbons J. Cooney
"....Obama's decision to reverse the prohibition on funding for overseas family-planning providers may be the least popular thing he has done so far. This was an executive order that forbade federal government money from going to overseas family-planning groups that provide abortions or offer abortion counseling. Fifty-eight percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's decision to lift this ban, while only 35% approve of it. The ban on federal funds to these groups was put in place by Ronald Reagan, but lifted by Bill Clinton. George W. Bush re-instituted the ban after taking office in 2001, but Obama has once again lifted it.
The abortion and Guantanamo Bay prison decisions are especially unpopular among Republicans; only 8% approve of the former and 11% of the latter. But these are also the least popular decisions among independents and Democrats as well, though a majority of Democrats still approve of both.
It's good the American people oppose this policy, but will that matter? It's critical psychologically for the Democrats to support abortion all the time. To admit anything is wrong with abortion is to admit that the unborn child is a person. Once you've acquiesced in 49 million+ abortions, you'll do anything to prevent that possibility from enetring your conciousness.
Still, it's possible, so I'm sending the following letter. Join me!
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC, 20500
Dear Mr. President,
A Gallup Poll of January 28-February 1, 2009 showed that 58% of Americans disagreed with your reversal of the prohibition on taxpayer funding for overseas family planning providers that provide abortion or abortion counseling.
Mr. President, in light of this, I strongly ask and encourage you, in the name national unity, to reinstitute this ban.
Sincerely,
Gibbons J. Cooney
San Francisco
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
