Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Posts Tagged ‘Obamarama’

Cardinal Dolan’s Blog and Errors

August 19th, 2013, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Cardinal DolanSince the promulgation of the HHS Mandate about 1 ½ years ago, there have been comments by laity about the lack of strong teaching from the pulpit against intrinsic evils.  The corollary criticism has been about too much commentary and directive, especially in the run-up to last November’s election, on matters to which the laity is entitled to form their own prudential judgments; i.e., on matters of opinion, or in which there is no specific Church Teaching.  Just because a member of the hierarchy writes his own opinions and calls them “Church Teaching,” does not make it so.

One such opinion, expressed by Cardinal Dolan, is egregiously off the mark regarding Catholic Teaching, i.e. his staunch support for gun control, explicitly stating it is Church Teaching, on the Archdiocese of New York website.  His not identifying the matter as a prudential judgment issue can manipulate the flock into thinking that in order to be faithful Catholics, they too must agree with His Eminence, or with his seeming praise for three politicians whose actions have been averse to the Catholic Church:  President Obama, NYS Governor Cuomo and NYC Mayor Bloomberg.

The entire text of Cardinal Dolan’s Blog and its comments can be read here:  , issued two months after the Newtown school killings, just before he boarded the plane to the Conclave in Rome.

Five Errors in Cardinal Dolan’s Gun Opinion as Church Teaching

Cardinal Dolan put forth his blog comments as Church Teaching.  It is full of errors, inaccuracies and twists of words which need further parsing.  When any member of the hierarchy cloaks his own opinion as Church Teaching, without explaining to the flock their own rights and duties, it can lead them and others astray, and seem to excuse them from the hard work of forming their own opinions, consciences and judgments.


1)      Cardinal Dolan characterized his blog proclamation as Church Teaching.  He never stated that it is his own opinion, or that “gun control” is a matter of prudential judgment.  He glossed over the right of his readers to form their own legitimate opinions, stating: “Advocating for gun control is not something new for the Church.  The Holy See has continuously been a strong voice in opposition to international arms trading, the world’s version of gun control….”  On its surface the sentence doesn’t even make sense.  Arms trading is a version of gun control?  There is no logical connection between the number of cartridges in a gun in the U.S. and international arms trading, and it is not right to say so.  International arms trading, which inevitably leads to child soldiers, and spending money on arms rather than food, has nothing to do with U.S. Second Amendment rights to protect oneself and family, or to be able to hunt, e.g.  By lumping weapons of self-defense with arms trafficking, Cardinal Dolan also ignores Catechism provisions, such as paragraph 2265, e.g.: “Legitimate Defense can not only be a right but a duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”  (more…)

Cardinal Dolan: An Embarrassment and a Scandal

March 26th, 2013, Promulgated by Hopefull

In case you haven’t heard Michael Voris’ denunciation of Cardinal Dolan’s giving Holy Communion to Joe Biden at St. Patrick’s Cathedral on Palm Sunday, here it is:

Pope Francis could not have been clearer that he supports Canon 915 which requires denying Communion to such as Joe Biden.  Cardinal Dolan could not have been clearer that he doesn’t give a rap what Pope Francis thinks, or what Canon Law says.  This  “Prince of the Church” needs a warning label that following him may be dangerous to our spiritual health!

ScreenShot275                                    ScreenShot276

Fr. Spilly… AGAIN

January 24th, 2013, Promulgated by Dr. K

Fr. William Spilly, pastor of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton in Hamlin, has a long history of criticizing the Catholic Church and calling for change from within. In his latest critique, Father opines that the Church must promote equality for gays and women inside the institution.

One can only speculate what this so-called equality would entail.

spilly on gays and women in church


A Rochester Priest Who Gets It

December 4th, 2012, Promulgated by Dr. K

Here is an excellent letter to the editor in the Catholic Courier penned by Fr. Jim Hewes, parochial vicar of the Holy Ghost/St. Helen/St. Jude cluster and local director of Project Rachel:

Have voters chided victor?

Once again over 50 percent of Catholic voters voted for President Obama. This means that probably 50 percent of Catholic voters in our diocese voted for President Obama. So I ask those Catholics who voted for President Obama:

Have you sent your letter already to the president as his supporter asking him to change his position of unrestricted access to abortions — including allowing abortions for gender selection or without parental consent or partial-birth abortions — and to stop supporting the government’s paying for abortions through Medicaid?

Have you written your letter to him asking him to stop governmental funding of Planned Parenthood, which performed over 329,445 abortions in 2010? By the way Planned Parenthood has been involved in most of the major cases, which have struck down any legal protection of the pre-born. This is why the April 14, 1993, New York Times pointed out, “in simple equation of public image, Planned Parenthood equals abortion rights.” The December 11, 1989, issue of Time magazine described Planned Parenthood as “the premiere institution of performing abortion in the country.”

Have you included in your letter a request to President Obama to rescind his Executive Order that removed any barriers to scientific research including embryonic stem cell research)?

In your letter have you urged President Obama to stop supporting the death penalty?

Finally, as Catholics committed to the non-violent teaching of Jesus, have you pleaded with President Obama to stop supporting U.S. violence in other countries including Libya and Afghanistan, where he ordered a surge of 30,000 troops and has increased significantly the number of drone attacks?

It is because of the Catholic vision of life that I didn’t vote for President Obama. It is the same reason I didn’t vote for Governor Romney, but that would be another whole letter.

Father Jim Hewes

Thank you for defending life, Father!

By the Book on Cardinal Dolan

November 22nd, 2012, Promulgated by Diane Harris

In Spring 2012 I bought two books by brothers about their famous siblings.  One is “My Brother, the Pope,” by Fr. Georg Ratzinger.  The second, which I read first, is the rather bulky title: “Life Lessons from my Life with my Brother, Timothy Cardinal Dolan,” by Bob Dolan.  By way of disclaimer, I should say that I haven’t read the Ratzinger book yet, so what I will say about the Dolan book is NOT by way of comparison.  

I had read about two-thirds of the Dolan book early in the summer, before I became totally disgusted with it, and put it aside.  Then the concerns broke about Cardinal Dolan’s invitation to Pres. Obama to take the podium at the Al Smith Dinner, and yet a new light was cast on the Dolan book.  I finished the book and still paused about whether or not to say anything, whether or not to document my disappointment and open the subject for discussion.  I know I’m not alone, although clearly in the minority.  On Amazon 12 of the 14 reviewers give the Dolan book “5 stars.”  I found that out after I’d read it.  But 1 reviewer gave it  a “one star” and one gave it a “two star.”  At this writing there are no three or four star ratings.  I will excerpt from those two writers what exactly reflects my own conclusions, as sometimes it is easier to use the words of others.

The “two-star” reviewer wrote:  “…By the second chapter, I was already terribly disappointed. At first I thought Bob was just a very inexperienced writer…  Bob sounded both petty and insecure as he emphasized, in almost every situation, his brothers love of alcohol and/or a good cigar. He often times made it more of the focus than whatever the topic of that particular chapter was. … he spent a considerable amount of time promoting himself … a shameless attempt at self promotion. Bob comes across as insincere and appears to be trapped in a love/hate type of regard for his brother’s success. From my perspective, Bob fell short in sharing any meaningful “Life Lessons” …. I finished the book but I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.”

The “one-star” reviewer wrote:   “I’m so sorry. I really wanted to like this book.  But I’m afraid Bob Dolan didn’t do his brother any favors by writing it. Cardinal Dolan comes across as a really likable guy to spend a Saturday afternoon with, but not someone who is capable of leading the Church in a wider field than New York.  I hope he isn’t really the way his brother portrayed him. … we need something more than a guy who likes his whiskey and a good laugh.  And I have to say, the conversations Bob Dolan says he has with his brother about the faith are stilted and fake sounding. … Bob, please tell me that you made most of this up. In any case, your brother deserved better, or better yet, nothing at all.”

I agree with both these reviewers, and one can read the rest of their posts on the Amazon website (PS here — I’m trying to transition away from Amazon due to their founder/President giving $2.5 million to support so-called “gay marriage” on the Washington state ballot.) 

But there is more both reviewers left unsaid, or to be re-said.  I was very put off by the alcohol preoccupation.  If I could stomach re-reading I would have to count up the numerous references to alcohol, and the prominence in many of the pictures of drinks — whether it is Cardinal Dolan sitting with his mother with a dozen glasses in front of them, or Cardinal Dolan praying with a drink obviously on the table right beside him (and two strategic buttons unbuttoned in picture below.)  I was struck by how easily the pictures could have been cropped, unless that was part of the purpose — is it supposed to imply an alcohol problem?  (Don’t judge too quickly until you’ve read the book.)  And there’s the button issue again, in the last picture, from the Conclave.

Bob Dolan makes two prominent cases of his being bullied at the young Tim Dolan’s hands, one over a frightening ‘in the dark’ intrusion and one over wilting sarcasm as the younger Bob loses his childhood savings in a poker game.  Why even tell these tales unless there is some other agenda? 

The cover picture on the book evokes a “Tim laughing at Bob” discomfort as well.  It is a disturbing picture, to me, especially having read the book.  And what is the unshaven implication of disrespect in the pictures of Bob Dolan at the celebration after the ceremony elevating Abp. Dolan to Cardinal?  By the end of the book, I found myself simply asking “WHY?”  Why did brother Bob write this at all, and the “love/hate” of one reviewer seemed too credible.

But I think the worst damage Bob Dolan did was not so much in dwelling on irrelevant past episodes, or even stilted, pompous and unlikely dialogue of the present, but rather in entertaining and speculating on the likelihood of Cardinal Dolan’s becoming Pope.  Even the most rudimentary understanding of how things work in Rome would imply that the very speculation can well keep something from happening, and that becomes a real consideration.   Brother Bob knows full well he should not be speculating on such possibilities.  He also has a knack for alienating his brother’s peers.  Imagine!   He called the Consistory which elevated 22 men to Cardinals  “Tim’s consistory” and wrote:  “We apparently believed the other 21 men who would also receive the biretta were merely Tim’s opening act.”  Brother Bob also quotes other churchmen as lavishing extreme praise on Cardinal Dolan, but it is strange how none of those sources have names.  Are they real or are they and their quotes made up?  Yet, brother Bob is supposedly a news reporter, a “media professional” and he doesn’t quote sources?  Why not?  He cites “a visiting bishop” as saying  “I think [the Pope] is gently dropping a hint that, at least in his opinion, this man [Cardinal Dolan] is worth considering as his successor.”  This is not only highly inappropriate as “Vatican behavior” but it raises implications of Pope Benedict’s death, highly disrespectful.  Might it not be possible — if he really was given so many accolades of his brother with papal speculation — that it was Cardinal Dolan’s family that was under inspection and, if Bob Dolan’s writing is the result, the family likely failed the test.  What test?  Of  loyalty, of humility, of circumspection, of deportment, of judgment, of trust.  Thanks, Bob.

The author goes on to speculate that much as they’d hate to see less of the Cardinal, “if we considered what may be best for the worldwide Church, …he’d be an excellent choice.”  Now, can we believe any well-adjusted, politically sensitive sibling would write that, and the following regarding the consideration of Cardinal Dolan for Pope:  “I still believe the odds are against it but I’ve been persuaded to believe he will be considered and will probably receive a good number of votes from his brother cardinals.  Which brings me to the next conclave, whenever it is.  I’m on record that my wife and I will be in Rome watching for the white smoke….if my brother walked out on that balcony… I will still fall to the ground; but …not out of shock but because of joy and gratitude.” 

When the news broke about what many Catholics see as poor judgment on the part of Cardinal Dolan in inviting Pres. Obama to the podium of the Al Smith dinner, I began a post that I never completed, called “Has the red hat gone to his head?”  Now, perhaps, it would be fairer to say “Has the red hat gone to his brother’s head?”  Nevertheless, the threads laid out by brother Bob — bullying, alcohol, flippancy, arrogance, open all kinds of questions about seeking status, influence and political clout.  Cardinal Dolan ignored the urging of so many of his flock not to do what he did, that it is now fair to ask how many of the Catholic votes that went for Obama weighed as part of their decision making the photo ops and Catholic stage which Cardinal Dolan provided?  And, when Cardinal Dolan witnessed the liturgical prancing of half-dressed babes in the DoR Cathedral, as he did, or spoke from the pulpit during Mass ranking Bishop Clark behind a “garbage plate” as his idea of a joke, will he have the stomach or the clout or sensitivity to do what is needed in the Church today, let alone to see through the battle now engaged by the USCCB under his leadership?  I certainly hope so, but Brother Bob’s book has introduced an element of skepticism and deep concern. 


March 12, 2013:  Update from the Conclave with the Dolan Brothers:



+Clark speaks, but what does he say?

February 5th, 2012, Promulgated by Abaccio

As promised, if Bishop Clark spoke out on the Contraception Mandate, I would give him credit.  I’m surprised to see that His Excellency has joined over 150 other American Bishops in speaking out against this mandate.  Kudos, Your Excellency!  That said, let us examine precisely  what he said, what the standard form-letter states, and some of the more impressive  responses given by other Bishops.  I will let you be the judge of the quality of his…”speaking out on the issue,” but I, quite frankly, think it is exceedingly weak and, much like most of the fruits of his administration, rather emasculated.

Bishop Olmsted’s letter here is essentially the form-letter used by a great many Bishops.  Here is Bishop Clark’s letter.

The following text is from the form-letter.  The bold parts are those included by +Clark.  The [bracketed parts] were added by +Clark.  That which is neither bracketed nor bold was struck out by +Clark. That in (red) is my commentary

Dear Brothers and Sisters [Sisters and Brothers] in Christ, (always obsessed with women…)

[With a heavy heart,] I write to you [today to call your attention to an important development which] concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at [threatens] the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people—the Catholic population—and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful. (note the difference in opening paragraph.  +Clark refuses to acknowledge the fact that this is a direct attack on the Catholic Church and her people.)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced [on January 20, 2012] last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, (won’t acknowledge the specifically Catholic problem…)will [now] be forced [mandated] to offer their employees health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies. (+Clark does not use the word “forced,” thus making it seem less problematic…mandated sounds less dictator-ish than “forced”)

In so ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule [ruling] is overturned, we Catholics must be prepared [will be required to] either to violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply. (+Clark refuses to implicate the Obama administration, does not note that there are penalties for dropping health coverage, nor acknowledge their absurd “concession.  Furthermore, his use of “ruling” makes it seem like an impartial judge, rather than an anti-Catholic bigoted President made this decision.)

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

[As we have done in the past, so now we must make our voices heard on this important matter of religious freedom.] (So very inspiring! A true call to action…uh…nope!  He also does not suppose civil disobedience as a course of action, just suggests that we talk about it.  ONCE AGAIN, stripping the letter of any real courage.)

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must  [to] commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may [might] prevail, and [that true] religious liberty may be restored. (He really hates the word “must,” apparently.) Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I [ask you individually to visit] would also recommend visiting, to learn more about this severe assault (severe sounds mean, let’s skip that too!)on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Administration’s [administrative] decision. (SEE! +Clark refuses to implicate the Obama administration in a way that might form our voting consciences in 2012!)

[May God Bless our efforts to do what is right.]

Some other Bishops’ responses include

Bishop Tobin of Providence, who stated, “The ruthless decision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to impose mandatory coverage for sterilizations and contraceptives upon private insurance programs, including those offered by the Catholic Church, is an unprecedented, outrageous and unacceptable attack on religious freedom and the moral life and ministry of the Church.”

Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn noted, “As a Bishop, this troubles me because it indicates that we have failed to teach the truths of the Catholic Faith clearly and convincingly.”

Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh, when his first impassioned response was met with complaints, responded to them.  His answer to  “The Church doesn’t care about women’s health.” follows:

I think that is when my head nearly exploded. The truth be told, the Catholic Church throughout this country virtually created health care in the United States. In Pittsburgh, the first hospital, Mercy Hospital, was opened under Church auspices within a year of the founding of our diocese and long before the government responded. The Church’s health care ministry was built primarily by Catholic women and has served women of all faiths and no faith from its inception. What we don’t do, can’t do, won’t do is consider pregnancy a disease equivalent to the flu. Or to be “cured” by death.”

Finally, let us hear Bishop Slattery of Tulsa, who exclaims:

“As your bishop, I want to make it clear that I consider this mandate unconstitutional, unjust and evil.

This mandate is unconstitutional because it does not allow us the full and unfettered practice of our faith. The religious freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is not simply the freedom to worship God on Sunday morning, but also the freedom to worship Him by living moral lives. No Catholic can claim to live a moral life and at the same time support contraception, direct sterilization and abortion. The first amendment guarantees us the freedom not to participate in health care plans that would require us to insure and pay for actions that are gravely sinful.

Because this mandate is unconstitutional, we will refuse to comply with it.

This mandate is evil, because not only does it require that all Catholics cooperate in sin by providing for and paying for coverage for gravely immoral actions which have as their final end the destruction of human life, but also by requiring that Catholics who do not cooperate in this should be punished. Were we to comply with this law, we would offend God and imperil our souls. We will not comply.

This mandate is unjust because it imposes a secular definition of religious freedom that makes it a crime to practice our faith in the public square. It is the Church – not the government – which has the right to determine how and when we practice our faith. In this matter, President Obama’s administration has overstepped its authority. This is what Pope Leo XIII cautioned against when he wrote over a hundred years ago: “if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, then those rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice. Nor can their authority be valid, since authority without justice is null.”

From the founding of our nation, we Catholic have always obeyed the laws. But this law, we cannot obey.”

Therefore, I ask you: What do you think about Bishop Clark’s response to this debacle?

+Clark’s continued silence speaks volumes

January 31st, 2012, Promulgated by Abaccio

When was the last time you heard contraception denounced from the pulpit?  How many parishes stress the importance of Natural Family Planning in their Pre-Cana classes?  Have you EVER heard your priest give a no-frills defense of the Church’s teachings on contraception?  In all of my years in all of the parishes I’ve attended, I have never once heard a homily that even broaches the subject.  Why not?  That answer, dear readers, is simple.  For the past forty-four years, (and, indeed, before that!) since His Holiness, Pope Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae, countless Priests, Bishops, Religious, and Laypersons have either ignored or openly dissented from the teachings contained therein.  This has been especially prevalent right here in the Diocese of Rochester.

For Reference, HV 14 states:

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

HV 17 prophetically continues,

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone.  (See: China) It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband 

Dear Bishops, Priests, Religious, and Laypersons:


Fr. Charles Curran’s obstinate post-baptismal denial of the teachings of the Church on this very topic in 1986 caused then-Cardinal Ratzinger to ban him from the teaching of Catholic Theology and cost him his job as a tenured professor at the Catholic University of America in DC.  Curran, as many of you know, remains a priest in good standing of the Diocese of Rochester.  As far as I know, the reason for this is quite simple: Bishop Matthew Clark AGREES with him!  Of course, we all know the long story of His Excellency’s history of dissent on issues of sexual morality: his near-obsession with the promotion of the homosexual agenda, his implicit support of the use of a transgendered crucifix, his appointment of heretical Sr. Pat Schoelles as President of the French Road Heresy Factory, his 33 non-appearances at the March for Life, and the forcible removal of his imprimatur from the 1986 heretical book Parents Talk Love: The Catholic Family Handbook About Sexuality, as it approved of contraception, masturbation, and homosexuality.  The list goes on and on and on.

Thus, with over 116 American Bishops speaking out about this issue, Bishop Clark’s continued silence speaks volumes.  You may recall the last time American Bishops rallied together to defend the Faith: The Notre Shame Scandal.  The final count of those speaking out against the decision was 83.  Now, there is perhaps an argument of “pastoral sensitivity” or some such that could be reasonably defended when ignoring the events at Notre Shame.  THERE IS NO EXCUSE not to speak up and defend the TRUTH in this instance.  There is still time, after 33 years of failed leadership, for His Excellency to turn over a new leaf.  That time, however, is running shorter by the day.  The clock ticks down…170, 169, 168, 167, 166…

I once, when traveling, met a priest of another Diocese.  When he recognized me as a visitor (Pastoral Sensitivity!), he asked where I was from.  When I told him that I was from Rochester, New York, he exclaimed, “Rochester! Beautiful country up there!  It’s a shame they don’t have a CATHOLIC Bishop!” With this in mind, let us look for some guidance from the more courageous and orthodox among the American Episcopate:

Bishop Jenky of Peoria asked that the St Michael Prayer be prayed during the General Intercessions at EVERY MASS.

Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh stated that, “It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, “To Hell with you!” There is no other way to put it.”

Bishop Etienne of Cheyenne guides our voting consciences thus: “When an Administration, after seeking feedback on such a controversial ruling, still decides to act in a manner that violates our freedom of religion, it is quite telling…”

Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix, and dozens of other bishops implore us to “commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored.”

Bishop Paprocki of Springfield states that, ” the president was being either dishonest or delusional or he is incompetent” due to his claim last November that the concerns of Catholics were unfounded.

Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln noted that “in an act of mockery,” “Kathleen Sebelius, a bitter fallen-away Catholic, now requires that all insurance, even when issued privately, must carry coverage for evil and grave sin.”

Bishop Lori of Bridgeport explains how this mandate will directly harm the poor and vulnerable

Cardinal-Designate Dolan of New York explains that it is absurd to believe  that “we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now,” and goes on to explain that “This latest erosion of our first freedom should make all Americans pause. When the government tampers with a freedom so fundamental to the life of our nation, one shudders to think what lies ahead.”

The (Arch)Bishops of Washington DC, Kansas City, KS (Sebelius’ home diocese), Wilmington, DE (Biden’s home diocese), as well as our neighboring Bishops in Buffalo and Syracuse have spoken out on this mandate, as have the Bishops of Ogdensburg, Rockville Center, and Brooklyn. For those keeping score at home, every single Diocesan Bishop in New York State EXCEPT  +Clark and his heretical best friend, Bishop Hubbard of Albany, have spoken out on this mandate.  The silence is deafening.


**Disclaimer:  If, in fact, Bishop Clark speaks out about this issue, I will be exceedingly glad to rescind the parts of this post that speak ill of the man.  I am not holding my breath, but that is the outcome for which I am praying.  Note: This does not constitute His Excellency “speaking out” on the issue.**

Liberals Are Nuts

October 5th, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

I think the following Letter to the Editor that appears on the Catholic Courier website more than speaks for itself.

Enjoy a fascinating look into the mind of liberals. I know you’ll probably think this is a fabrication, but the letter is definitely real. Check the link above if you don’t believe me.

(emphasis added for the particularly loony comments)

Decries game at festival

There was a new “game” at the recent St. Mary’s Church summer festival in Canandaigua which appalled me.

For one dollar you got five balls to try to toss into glass containers. Every time a ball landed in a container, participants were given a live goldfish kept in a small plastic bag, without food and with barely enough water to remain alive.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of live goldfish were given away as prizes, as if they were inanimate objects. No consideration was given in regards to what would happen to these animals, that were handed out faster than the delicious fried dough that was sold at a neighboring booth.

Goldfish are gentle, graceful animals that are worthy of moral consideration.

Far too often, the worship of God becomes a matter of ceremony and ritual, rather than a matter of practicing compassionate treatment for all God’s creations.

I am offended when our religious leaders — be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim — disregard the importance of respecting other living beings.

Jesus was born in a manger that sheltered and nurtured animals. He reminded people that animals should be the object of peoples’ concern and care. It was the slaughter of animals, in the name of God, that led Jesus to free animals about to be slaughtered at the Jerusalem Temple and to disrupt the procedure associated with these sacrificial rites. There is also evidence that Jesus was an Essene, a vegetarian sect of Judaism.

I believe Jesus would have regarded the cruelty to goldfish, which occurred on the property of a church established to revere him, as a sacrilege.

Joel Freedman

Freedman chairs the public education committee of Animal Rights Advocates of Upstate New York”

I repeat… this is a REAL letter to the editor from the Diocese of Rochester Catholic Courier.

Regarding the Rights to Bear Arms and Kill Babies

October 4th, 2010, Promulgated by Gen

When you visualize a typical liberal donning his/her/its war-paint, you think to yourself: pro-choice, pro-gun-control, etc. Well, leave it to a Tennessee abortion-providing doctor to destroy our pre-conceived notions.

CHARLESTON – For the past 11 days, anti-abortion demonstrators have gathered at the Charleston Women’s Medical Center in West Ashley as part of the annual “40 Days for Life” movement against abortion, each of them signing a “statement of peace” before participating.

Police say the protest met a threat Saturday morning when an out-of-state abortion doctor flashed a gun at them.


Police arrested Gary Boyle, 62, a Blountville, Tenn., physician, on charges of pointing a firearm.

Boyle drove into the parking lot of the clinic on Ashley River Road near Fuseler Road at around 8:30 a.m. When three protesters, including a 17-year-old boy, approached him, Boyle brandished a black handgun loaded with 15 rounds, according to a police report. (Now that’s an honest reaction. I know whenever a stranger comes up to me, I greet him with a hearty “hello” and pull a gun on him. Quite logical, really.)

Boyle then stepped out of his SUV and walked into the clinic without further incident, the report says. One of the three protesters, 50-year-old John Karafa, called 911.

“We were like, ‘Well, that was a gun,’ ” Karafa said. “You can’t do that.”

Boyle appeared by video conference at a bond hearing Saturday afternoon dressed in a light yellow button-down shirt. Charleston County Magistrate Priscilla Baldwin set his bail at $25,000, which he posted later Saturday.

Whether Boyle performed abortions locally is not known. He and another physician operate the Bristol Regional Women’s Center near his Tennessee home.

A woman who came to the courtroom on Boyle’s behalf declined to speak during the proceedings and ignored requests for comment after the hearing.

More than a half-dozen anti- abortion demonstrators also attended the proceedings, many wearing light blue “40 Days for Life” wrist bands.

Protesters began gathering outside the West Ashley clinic on Sept. 22 and will hold a prayer vigil against abortion there 24 hours a day, every day, until Oct. 31.

Charleston Women’s Medical Center representatives could not be reached for comment through the after-hours phone line.

Tom Barber, local director of “40 Days for Life,” said Saturday marked the first disturbance in its three-year history locally, which he said includes holding hands and lighting candles but not harassing doctors or patients.

Barber said participants must sign a “statement of peace” before joining. (I’d imagine that doctors must have something like that, something which prevents them from killing their patients, from doing harm against them. I’ve heard stories of a mystical “Hippocratic Oath,” but it’s obvious it’s just a fantasy for many doctors, seeing as how a genuine and competent doctor doesn’t murder his patients. How’s that for a “statement of peace”?)

Barber’s sister, Sandra Rochester, said members of the vigil hand out literature to women who engage them. The pamphlets direct those patients to the Lowcountry Pregnancy Center, a Christian organization that counsels women and encourages alternatives to abortion.

“We’ve saved four babies so far,” Rochester said. (And they did that without guns. Just prayer, diligence, and home-made signs.)

Of the three protesters who approached Boyle, only Karafa represented the “40 Days” movement. The Charleston Women’s Medical Center attracts anti-abortion demonstrators every Saturday, and about 15 people had come out to protest when Boyle allegedly brandished the gun.

The incident wasn’t the doctor’s first legal snag. (What a surprise.)

He and his partner operated their clinic without a required certificate of need from the Tennessee Health Department for several years in the 1990s, and the health department tried to shut them down, according to court filings.

The dispute dragged on for years until 2002, when an appeals judge ruled that the state statute requiring the certificate had violated a woman’s right to privacy.

Swept under the rug

September 22nd, 2010, Promulgated by Abaccio

I am sure all of you have heard dozens of stories on the blocking of the Dems’ latest baby, a Military Appropriations Bill that seeks to repeal the 1993 law commonly known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which effectively bans open homosexuals from serving in the US Military.    This also contained a cleverly titled idea from Majority Leader Harry Reid (engaged in a neck-and-neck battle for re-election)  called DREAM.  DREAM would grant amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants if they have spent two years in college or military service, arrived in the US prior to age 16, have a HS diploma, and have been here at least 5 years.

Swept under the rug, however, in this entire process has been an amendment sponsored by Roland Burris which would lift the ban on elective abortions in military facilities.  That’s right, folks, the scandal-ridden successor to Barrack Obama as Illinois’ Junior Senator has shown once again the EXACT agenda of these pondscum-government sponsored abortion on demand.

In addition to being morally reprehensible, this would be yet another burden on our service men and women–the last time abortions were allowed in military facilities (from 1993-1996) a very large number of military doctors and nurses left, thereby hurting the ACTUAL medical care of our troops!

As always, folks, you CANNOT be Catholic and pro-abortion, and you CANNOT in good conscience vote for anyone who makes it their goal to support pseudo-healthcare in the form of the murder of the unborn.  Remember that as you vote this fall.  It is non-negotiable.

False Ecumenism From an Obama-Loving Nun

August 17th, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

In today’s Democrat & Chronicle letters to the editor section, regarding the WTC mosque in New York City:

“Obama defends freedom of religion

Acts of terrorism and hostility by any person or group toward others is very fearful. The fierce opposition to building or enlarging mosques in our country strikes me as extremist reaction. History is full of tragic examples where reaction has wrought great harm at the expense of truth. I support our president’s stand on the right of Muslims to build their mosque in New York City. He defends, as all of us must, this nation’s fundamental right of freedom of religion.

Julien is member of the Sisters of St. Joseph Peace and Justice Committee.”

Hasn’t it gotten to the point, my dear readers, where we have become too  concerned with the affairs of other religions at the neglect of our own? I hate to use this, as I don’t believe any of us knows truly what God would do, but “WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?” Do you think the Lord Jesus Christ would defend pagans who wanted to build a temple, and claim that they have a right to worship their false gods? Do you think Christ would say “Let these people build a temple to Baal, for it is their right!” I truly doubt it.

Let’s worry about our own faith, and let the Moslems worry about theirs. We are doing ourselves no favor when we come rushing to the defense of another religion which is in competition with us for souls, especially when this religion has done little to assist us and much to attack us.

By the way, this is not the first time that Sr. Julian, SSJ has written to the D&C letters to the editor taking the side of Barack Obama. From 2009:

“At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, the message of a scarcely known black man captured my imagination. He was eloquent, reconciling, of presidential bearing. The historic election of ’08 became a hopeful sign to people of color that the equality proclaimed in our founding documents might possibly come true. Under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., this kind of hope was lively, but the decades that followed saw an erosion of hope by meager opportunities and ongoing discrimination.

Barack Obama’s singular achievement now rekindles that spirit of possibility and opportunity. It speaks of a movement toward healing past racial division. It offers hope of a greater union with our nation.

Obama was elected by persons of every race, age and faith. Perhaps Americans were weary of leadership that addressed national and world problems in old and failed ways. Obama’s approach promised closeness to people and their concerns, a more compassionate leadership, a new way of dealing with world neighbors that would heal existing divisions. How Americans would welcome being well-thought-of among nations!

Why was Obama elected? We saw in him an intelligent, well-spoken person, thoughtful, self-possessed, calm under pressure and remarkably gracious when attacked. This election proved that an outstanding person who happens to be black could be president.

— Sister Lorraine Julien, Rochester

The writer is a Sister of St. Joseph.”

Liars, and Tyrants, and Bores, Oh My! – UPDATE

July 15th, 2010, Promulgated by Nerina

There are three very “hot” Catholic issues on the blogs today.  One I posted on a few days ago outlining the firing of Dr. Kenneth Howell for teaching Natural Law morality at the University of Illinois, another has to do with abortion funding in Obamacare (a.k.a. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and the last one has to do with Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Under the “Liars” category,  we have this story about abortion coverage approval by the HHS under “high risk” insurance pools in Pennsylvania (other states have asked for similar approval).  Remember President Obama’s pledge to find “common ground” on the abortion issue?  The NRLC is on the case and has released this statement. For review, here’s an list of some of President Obama’s “common ground” measures.

Under the “Tyrants” category, we revisit the recent firing of Dr. Kenneth Howell (see here for background).  Apprently, many groups are outraged at the firing of Dr. Howell (and not all Catholics, either).  You can find detailed information over at the CatholicVoteAction blog here or join the “Save Dr. Ken” page on Facebook.  Al Kresta, from “Kresta in the Afternoon” (heard on our local Catholic radio station) interviewed Dr. Howell.  The video/audio is available here.

And finally, under the “Bores” category we have the potential disqualification of Elena Kagan as a nominee for the Supreme Court (this is actually a very exciting story, but I had to find some heading to fit with my ode to the “Wizard of Oz”).  Jill Stanek (an ardent and tireless pro-life voice) gives the details here. In short, Elena Kagan likely committed perjury when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on her role with the ACOG partial-birth abortion scandal.  I wrote about this situation before.  I will update information as it becomes available.

UPDATE: A press conference originally scheduled for today at 2:30 to propose an investigation into Elena Kagan’s role in the ACOG scandal was postponed due to a Senate Floor vote.  See the Americans United for Life website for more details.

In His peace,


Why Elena Kagan is Bad News for the Pro-life Cause

June 29th, 2010, Promulgated by Nerina

Subtitled: Why Presidential Elections Matter

In spite of President Obama’s rhetorical promises to find “common ground” on the issue of abortion, I’ve never been able to find any evidence to support his claims.  In fact, his record indicates that he’s never met a pro-abortion measure he didn’t like.   In addition to the fact that as an Illinois state senator he voted twice against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) which sought to protect children born as a result of a failed abortion, we now have to deal with his most recent nominee to the Supreme Court – Elena Kagan.  And Elena Kagan, my friends, is bad news for the pro-life cause.

Over at National Review we find this article which details Elena Kagan’s role in formulating language used by opponents of the federal ban of “partial-birth abortion” (PBA).   Shannen Coffin, a lawyer charged with defending the PBA ban during the Bush administration explains:

“Kagan’s language was copied verbatim by the ACOG executive board into its final statement, where it then became one of the greatest evidentiary hurdles faced by Justice Department lawyers (of whom I was one) in defending the federal ban. (Kagan’s role was never disclosed to the courts.)”

The “language”( which says that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”) is the same language cited by the Supreme Court in striking down Nebraska’s PBA ban.  Many believed this language came directly from a panel of  ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) experts.  Turns out, this language was actually written by Elena Kagan while serving under President Clinton as a policy adviser.  ACOG’s own language was distinctly different:  [it] “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” A very different statement, indeed.

It gets worse.  Internal memos make clear that Elena Kagan was aware that ACOG’s position “would be a disaster” for PBA proponents and that the official ACOG position was “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.” She got to work solving the problem by writing new language and suggesting that ACOG include it in their statement regarding PBA.  ACOG complied with her wishes and the rest is judicial history.  Thankfully, the PBA ban was eventually enacted under the Bush administration, but Elena Kagan did everthing in her power to prevent it.

St. Thomas More pray for us as Congress considers this Supreme Court candidate.

In His Peace,


**If you want to see political machinations up close, take time to read the above linked documents.  Scary stuff.

The New Racism – Obama and Abortion

April 19th, 2010, Promulgated by Gen

This cartoon is certainly thought-provoking, friends. It’s from the blog Veritatis: The Cartoon, and comes at a very appropriate time. Liberals are saying that racism is dead because we have an African-American president. But when you look at this, and consider other relevant things, it’s quite obvious that racism has simply evolved.

So what is this “evolved racism” that I mentioned? Let’s just examine the First Lady, Mrs. Michelle Obama. I am certain that she is a very lovely person, and I cringe to think that anyone would call her “monkey,” “ape-woman,” or “the msising link.” That’s just inappropriate. Whenever someone gets thrust into the news for such hate-filled language, they are pretty much labeled as racist, intolerant, reactionary, etc. However, what about the innumerable jokes about how George Bush looked like an ape? No one was ever arrested for hate-speech like that. What about the people who said his mother looked like a bloated whale? Mrs. Bush just carried on in her usual way, not getting her husband (George H.W. Bush) to censor or prosecute the people. 
If we’re really a post-racial nation, shouldn’t our first ladies act the same when attacked? God forbid anyone makes fun of the Obamas – but the Bushes, they’re just country hicks! Mock them and label them as morons, and no one lifts a finger. 
And please, do not get me started on Affirmative Action. For the handful of times that it actually works, it actually stifles the success of the genuinely qualified. I am clueless as how we all want to end racism, and yet we put up these bumpers around sensitive issues so that this group can get ahead, and that group doesn’t get offended, and these people can say this, and those people can do that. If we’re all equal, we should be treated as equals, and not given different starting positions.
I pray that President Obama realizes the gross injustices and contradictions in his presidency. How can he defend the ideals of the nation when things such as what is mentioned in the above cartoon are true? Is it post-racial for Planned Parenthood to erect its largest buildings in so-called “Black Ghettos”? The African American community is suffering because the politicians have declared racism to be over when, in fact, it is becoming more and more entrenched, but stealthily so. We are all equal in the sight of God, and for some people to be separated and exalted while others are held back due to feel-good politicking is to be part of a great injustice, one whose effects will be long-lasting and devastating for our brothers and sisters in faith.
But I digress . . .
I’m sure you’re wondering by now why, exactly, Gen is going off into racial politics and that whole politically-incorrect morass. Well, it’s especially apt considering my upcoming trip to Gettysburg and Washington, and the Governor of Virginia’s declaration of “Confederate History Month.” Come the end of the week, you’ll see some history-related posts of Catholic interest: Col. Patrick O’Rourke, Fr. William Corby, the Catholic parish in Gettysburg, the impact of St. Elizabeth Anne Seton, and more. The reason I’m looking forward to this trip is that in the events of history is reflected the hand of God. We can see that His will is always achieved in the end. We were punished with civil war for four long years, losing over 600,000 men killed and wounded. However, because of this, 4,000,000 slaves were freed, and given liberty.
It is truly a shame that leaders like Obama seem to drift above the sacrifices of ages past, living only in their glorious “now,” a “now” which excludes so much of what we are as a people. It’s amazingly naive to presume that a mere 150 years past the Civil War, the last vestiges of racism are erased permanently. We can see racism in our own realm of interest: the annual Chrism Mass features an African-American dancing around the altar. Our African-American brethren are separated, officially, and given their own parish set aside from the others. Is not the Mass a place to come together, united and not focused on race?
If I wanted to, I could go on and on and on about the whole issue about race and the Catholic identity (or race and the American identity), but I know that there are a few die-hard Democrats who read this blog, and whose blood is probably boiling by this point. Mea culpa for contributing to your high blood pressure, dear blue-staters.

Scratch a Liberal, Get a Nazi

March 30th, 2010, Promulgated by Gen

I had a run-in recently with a priest who informed me that anyone who professes to be pro-life is, in fact, responsible for abortion. His argument was that if you vote for pro-choice politicians, you elect people who respect women, make them feel better about themselves, and make them less likely to murder their offspring. He said, “Even if Obama were born on Mars, I would have voted for him over McCain.” This could turn into a post detailing how a Catholic cannot under any circumstance vote for a pro-choice candidate and remain in a state of grace. Instead, it will go somewhere else – into the deep, perverted psyche of liberals.

First of all, in this encounter, this priest interrupted me twice to make it sound as if I was condoning pro-choice politicians. He twisted my words to make them suit his political agenda. I tried to say, “The Catholic bishops have spoken precisely on the matter, and they condemn anyone who votes pro-choice.” What I got out before his rude interjection was, “The Catholic bishops have spoken precisely on the matter, and they condemn anyone who votes . . . “

He thundered back, ” . . . anyone who votes exclusively because of their stand on pro-choice politics.” He then went on to say that no one really likes abortion – it’s a necessary evil. So, let me get it straight – You’re only in trouble with the Big Guy when you vote only because a person is pro-choice, ipso facto making you pro-abortion. But, in his view, “No one is pro-abortion.” Note the contradiction? In his flawed reasoning, there is no room for sin because “the individual’s conscience is the noblest thing involved in the abortion debate.” Flawed logic all the way around, and built on rude interjections.

So, what made this priest, let’s call him “Joe,” react this way, shouting me down for the sake of his personal views?

It’s ego.

Every single liberal, without exception, who does not permit the other side to voice its opinion (i.e. Joan Sobala, Nancy DeRycke, Barrack Obama) places more value in the “I” than the “we.” A parishioner from St. Anne emailed me once with a “Me-Tally.” In this tally, he counted the use of “I,” “me,” “my,” and “mine,” over 120 times in one of Joan’s homilies. I think we find similar trends in the rhetoric of Prez Obama.

Note also how, when a genuine liberal is opposed, they turn vicious, playing dirty, unfair, and immorally. When parishioners confront these schismatic lay administraitors (TM), who always wins? The lay administrator. Without exception. These women claim the authority of the Church, while at the same time showing a complete rejection of this same authority. The same goes for this priest who declared, “I profess and love everything the Church teaches, and that’s why I voted for Barrack Obama.”

Liberals claim to be the abstract thinkers, the people who explore every alternative etc. However, they are closed minded and shallow, dealing in twisted absolutes and their own alter realities. Sure, you have to care for this unwilling mother, but not by letting her murder her child. That’s ludicrous. In a similar way, liberals fail to grasp anything beside the present. “We now have health-care reform.” Yes, we do, but in several years we will be crippled by debt and financial burdens.

Liberals put up this “nicey-nice” facade, but the instant you see through it and challenge their delusions, they turn, quite literally, into Nazis, imposing limitations on what you can and can’t do (politically and liturgically).

Seeing as how this post in itself is a “scratch” to a liberal, I’m not going to have free commenting. They can’t help themselves. For this one item, any comments you wish to make should be directed to me at

See? Conservatives value free speech. We tell you when and for how long there will be a limitation. Try posting a comment at – see how far you get. So much for dialogue, eh?

We need to take back our Church from Sister Carol Keehan types

March 25th, 2010, Promulgated by Choir


The Treachery of a Nun, and a New Sidebar Feature

March 25th, 2010, Promulgated by Gen

I was reading the National Review Online, and was stung by the following, my emphasis added:

President Obama will sign the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at 11:15 A.M. EST.
You can watch it live at the White House web site.
Jake Tapper reports that the president will use 20 pens to sign the bill, and that one each will go to POTUS will Democratic Senators Reid, Durbin, Baucus, Harkin, and Dodd; along with Representatives Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Miller, Waxman, Levin, Dingell, and Rangel. Pens will also go to Vice-President Biden, H&HS; Secretary Sebelius White House legislative affairs assistant Phil Schiliro, White House health policy chief Nancy-Ann DeParle, Vicki Kennedy, and Sr. Carol Keehan.

“So,” thought I, “why is she getting one of these metaphorical pieces of silver?

The American Papist has the answer.

The last pen he used, reports Daniel Foster, will be given to Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association.
Sr. Keehan, as most of you know, was a staunch ally of the Democrat efforts to push through their health care reform. She issued press releases on behalf of her organization asking representatives in Congress to pass the legislation, even without including abortion funding fixes (which they did). She met with Obama personally several days before the final vote in Congress, she contacted individual congressmen and assuaged their conscience that they could vote for the bill as-is, etc.

And, so, this brings me to the new Sidebar feature. It will be on the right (as is everything else on this blog), and will be titled, “Behold The Ranks of Judas.” In it will be listed those Catholics who, though they profess to be truly Catholic, aren’t. I will not presume to judge their motives or their souls – that’s for God. I will, however, judge their actions. Judging actions is not the same thing as judging an individual, so do not comment here or anywhere saying, “You lack charity,” “Love your enemies,” “Judge not lest ye be judged.” I’m getting tired of these faith-based phrases being twisted by the liberals into traps for those who defend the Faith. 

I will also refrain from putting anyone on this list who may be personally offended. We all know each other well enough, so there’s no need to point fingers at others and ourselves. This is for the Church Universal, not the Church Rochesterian.

Obama Signs Executive Order

March 24th, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

Yahoo news has posted an article stating that President Barack H. Obama has stuck to his promise to pro-life House Democrats to sign an Executive Order preventing the use of taxpayer dollars from going towards abortions. Here is an excerpt:

“WASHINGTON ? Anything but jubilant, President Barack Obama awkwardly kept a promise Wednesday he made to ensure passage of historic health care legislation, pledging the administration would not allow federal funds to pay for elective abortions covered by private insurance.

Unlike Tuesday, when a beaming Obama signed the health care law in a nationally televised ceremony interrupted repeatedly by applause, the White House refused to permit coverage of the event. It occurred in the Oval Office in the presence of a small group of anti-abortion Democratic lawmakers who had extracted the commitment over the weekend. The president supports abortion rights.

As signed into law, the health care bill says individuals who receive federal subsidies to purchase insurance may purchase abortion coverage, but must do so by writing a separate check from personal funds. Obama’s executive order commits the administration to issuing regulations making sure that personal and federal funds are kept separate.”

While this is very good news, it’s not something to get too excited about. For just as easily as Obama signed this Executive Order, he could turn around and sign another which does away with it. I would much rather have seen the abortion language included in the bill, but at this point we’ll take what we can get.

Last Second Deal on Obamacare

March 21st, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

As predicted earlier today, the House Democrats concerned about the abortion language in the bill have sold their souls, and have accepted a “promise” from President Obama that he will sign an executive order preventing tax dollars from going toward abortions.

The Obamacare bill, which represents a massive overhaul of the country’s health care system, will likely be approved today as a result of this “promise.”

The liberals can begin their rejoicing now, because the good times will come crashing down this November. The tax hikes on the wealthy will go into effect immediately, while the purported major benefits will come years down the road.

Brace yourselves for media spin and Obama glorification if this passes.

Update: Obamacare has passed by a vote of 219-212.

Judgment Day

March 21st, 2010, Promulgated by Dr. K

The media is already trumpeting a Democratic victory as they always do, but there is still time for prayer. I’m not convinced that Obama has the votes. However, it is possible that the pro-life Democrats will cave at the last minute as a result of false promises and hopes that either Obama will sign an executive order preventing tax-payer funded abortions, or the Senate will later approve a reconciliation bill after the House accepts the Senate bill (not very likely).

Pray pray pray today!

Update 1:40 PM- Debate has begun in the House.