By Mark Henry
The mid-term elections are just around the corner and America is on the brink of a political sea change pushed by a populist Tea Party led movement which opposes the Obama administration's big government approach to governance.
With an angry citizenry poised to drain the political swamp, the big question which begs an answer is … In what direction will these newly elected politicians lead us?
The voting constituency pushing this populist firestorm is diverse and does not lend itself to convenient political labeling. However, there is a common thread running through this group which is that they are fed up with the big government/big business/big labor trifecta.
Clearly, this momentous political movement is known more for what it stands against, rather than what it stands for.
As such, there is an ideological vacuum in this popular uprising which needs to be filled.
"Leaders" of this rank and file driven movement would do well to fill this ideological void with a platform anchored to a solid unshakable cornerstone. What is needed is an ideology that transcends labels like Democrat, Republican or Libertarian yet is mindful of the shortcomings of these political parties.
What is called for is an ideology that seeks to advance the cause of the common man, rather than elites, and which respects life, family and liberty.
The Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity is precisely that ideology. If a Tea Party Manifesto is created, its cornerstone should be the time-tested Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity.
In the political context, the principle of subsidiarity states that political decisions and other matters generally should be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. The Catechism (Sec. 1882 - 1883) clearly instructs Catholics to look to subsidiarity to protect against excessive intervention by the state which threatens personal freedom and initiative. This principle safeguards the ideals of limited government and personal freedom and stands squarely opposed to the welfare state’s goals of centralization and bureaucracy.
In the broader social context, subsidiarity stresses the importance of the common good and the values of family, life and community.
In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II warned us that the welfare state undermined this core principle of subsidiarity. The welfare state discourages human initiative and results in an excessive increase of public bureaucracies. This results in an enormous increase in spending by a government whose goal is to achieve its own statist agenda rather than to serve the public.
A growing number of reform minded politicians understand the relevance and importance of subsidiarity in dealing with the challenges of the day.
A fine example is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie whose efforts to fend off a state bankruptcy by shrinking state government are grounded in the principle of subsidiarity. Chris Christie's efforts to pare down the size and expense of government is a modern day profile in courage. Governor Christie’s reform efforts have provoked the ire of government employee unions who are resisting even modest cutbacks in employee benefits.
Christie’s crusade to reign in excessive government spending is also attracting attention nationwide as our nation’s financial crisis worsens and taxpaying citizens see that the cost of government just keeps on rising.
Before Chris Christie recently stormed onto the political scene, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum publically proclaimed the virtues of subsidiarity in his books, speeches and in the corridors of the Capitol.
Similarly, the lawsuits filed by 20 states to oppose Obamacare as an unprecedented encroachment by the federal government over the rights of private citizens are further examples of subsidiarity in action.
America would do well to select its future leaders from these individuals and others whose political ideologies are grounded on the core Catholic teaching of subsidiarity.
The results of the upcoming mid-term elections will likely be encouraging for politicians whose style of governance, whether they realize it or not, reflects bulwarks of subsidiarity like limited government and the common good. On the other hand, political leaders of both major parties who govern contrary to these principles do so at risk of shortening their own careers.
The large and still growing number of people who have joined together to evict the political ruling class include Tea Partiers, Libertarians, Conservative Republican, Reagan Democrats and many others who have suffered in this economic downturn. This is a diverse group indeed and for it to have long-term staying power this reform movement will need to come together on common ideological grounds. This common ground will not be found in the worn out policies emitting from the smoke-filled back rooms frequented by the elites who currently dominate American politics, both Republican and Democrat.
Instead, the ideology needed to unify this diverse reform minded movement needs to be based on the common good and respect for family, life, liberty and local community. These are time tested authentic values that people of good will can and should agree on. Subsidiarity is manifested in these commonly held values. These values must be the common ground upon which reform minded Americans can unify to recapture America and restore our country to greatness.
Subsidiarity is the ideological light on the path that our leaders need to follow to lead America out of these challenging times.
Without a doubt, subsidiarity was made for times such as these.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Tea Party Turning RINO’s Into Endangered Species
By Mark Henry
If there was any doubt that Tea Partiers have moderate Republicans in their crosshairs, those doubts were decisively removed by the GOP primary election results last night.
Tea Party backed candidates swept the GOP primary last night, emerging victorious over GOP Party backed candidates in Delaware and New York.
Christine O’Donnell’s upset win over moderate Michael Castle in the U.S. Senate primary in Delaware was particularly surprising. Mr. Castle, a former two-term Republican governor in blue-state Delaware was comfortably ahead in the polls until recently. Christine O’Donnell, a former abstinence counselor, was endorsed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party mobilized behind O’Donnell to carry her to victory in the GOP primary.
In New York, Carl Paladino plowed through GOP establishment candidate Rick Lazio on his way to winning the Republican gubernatorial primary. Most pundits are attributing Paladino’s victory to an anti-Albany Tea Party supported effort over Rick Lazio who was backed by the New York GOP establishment.
With last night’s GOP primary wins, the Tea Party movement juggernaught continues with an increasing number of RINO’s notched in it’s belt. Moderate Republican U.S. Senators Arlene Specter (PA), Robert Bennett (UT) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) are now former Senators thanks largely to grass roots Tea Party efforts.
The Tea Party movement’s success is attributable at least in part to a growing constituency of citizens who are fed up with all things big, whether it be big government, big business or big labor. More and more voters are waking up and realizing that entrenched political incumbents no longer serve the best interests of the common man. Tea Party activists believe that elected officials have elevated themselves to an elite ruling class that is little concerned with the plight of common man.
As a bottom up grass roots political movement, the Tea Party has so far resisted efforts to ideologically stifle its members enthusiasm by developing a comprehensive party platform. However, the time is coming when this growing political phenomenon will have to develop ideologically, while retaining the “no” to big government plank as a cornerstone.
If you scratch the surface of the Tea Party, the core Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity emerges. This principle states that as a general rule political decisions and other matters generally should be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Subsidiarity as a socio-political principle has weathered the test of time while competing ideologies like socialism and statism have been disproven and should have been relegated to the junk pile of failed ideas.
When you think about it, the Tea Party movement could do no better than to embrace the time tested principle of subsidiarity as the foundation to support its cornerstone philosophy of opposition to big government.
If there was any doubt that Tea Partiers have moderate Republicans in their crosshairs, those doubts were decisively removed by the GOP primary election results last night.
Tea Party backed candidates swept the GOP primary last night, emerging victorious over GOP Party backed candidates in Delaware and New York.
Christine O’Donnell’s upset win over moderate Michael Castle in the U.S. Senate primary in Delaware was particularly surprising. Mr. Castle, a former two-term Republican governor in blue-state Delaware was comfortably ahead in the polls until recently. Christine O’Donnell, a former abstinence counselor, was endorsed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party mobilized behind O’Donnell to carry her to victory in the GOP primary.
In New York, Carl Paladino plowed through GOP establishment candidate Rick Lazio on his way to winning the Republican gubernatorial primary. Most pundits are attributing Paladino’s victory to an anti-Albany Tea Party supported effort over Rick Lazio who was backed by the New York GOP establishment.
With last night’s GOP primary wins, the Tea Party movement juggernaught continues with an increasing number of RINO’s notched in it’s belt. Moderate Republican U.S. Senators Arlene Specter (PA), Robert Bennett (UT) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) are now former Senators thanks largely to grass roots Tea Party efforts.
The Tea Party movement’s success is attributable at least in part to a growing constituency of citizens who are fed up with all things big, whether it be big government, big business or big labor. More and more voters are waking up and realizing that entrenched political incumbents no longer serve the best interests of the common man. Tea Party activists believe that elected officials have elevated themselves to an elite ruling class that is little concerned with the plight of common man.
As a bottom up grass roots political movement, the Tea Party has so far resisted efforts to ideologically stifle its members enthusiasm by developing a comprehensive party platform. However, the time is coming when this growing political phenomenon will have to develop ideologically, while retaining the “no” to big government plank as a cornerstone.
If you scratch the surface of the Tea Party, the core Catholic social teaching of subsidiarity emerges. This principle states that as a general rule political decisions and other matters generally should be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Subsidiarity as a socio-political principle has weathered the test of time while competing ideologies like socialism and statism have been disproven and should have been relegated to the junk pile of failed ideas.
When you think about it, the Tea Party movement could do no better than to embrace the time tested principle of subsidiarity as the foundation to support its cornerstone philosophy of opposition to big government.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Nine Days That Changed The World - Come Holy Spirit And Restore America
by Mark Henry
Recently, I was greatly inspired seeing the new documentary "Nine Days That Changed The World". Narrated by recent Catholic convert Newt Gingrich and his wife Callista, it is a fascinating story about the life of Pope John Paul II and the singularly significant role the Pontiff had in toppling the communist empire of the Soviet Union.
The movie also noted the collaboration between the Pope and President Ronald Reagan and other courageous political leaders who realized how important was the battle for faith and against totalitarianism that was being fought in Poland in the 1970's and 1980's.
One of the most riveting scenes in the movie occurred when Pope John Paul II addressed an enormous crowd of his Polish countrymen. At one point, the Pope began to pray in a way I have never seen before as he supernaturally invoked the Holy Spirit by chanting "Come Holy Spirit, Change This Land". While the Pope fervently prayed to the Holy Spirit to save Poland, the one million or so Polish faithful spontaneously began to sing a traditional Polish song which honored Christ their savior. It was one of the most moving things I have ever seen or expect to see.
Pope John Paul II's visit to Poland strengthened the faith of his countrymen, unified the country and emboldened them to take on the corrupt communistic regime. Once the Polish people came together in prayer, Poland was a changed country and the days of communism were numbered.
The movie is a powerful testament to what a faithful leader can do to lead a country to victory over an all powerful adversary - the Soviet Empire - all without firing a shot.
While Nine Days That Changed The World tells of an epic struggle between faith, freedom and totalitarianism that occurred decades ago and an ocean away, it is a story which is deeply relevant to the crossroads America is currently facing.
According to recent polls, Americans are worried like never before about the state of our country. We are concerned about our current political leaders who are pushing us headlong towards socialism and totalitarianism. This is a failed ideology which did not work in Europe and resulted in upheaval and popular revolt in Poland and other countries of eastern Europe.
We Christians are particularly troubled by a culture that has embraced moral relativism and rejected the fundamental Christian values America was founded on.
We are troubled by what is happening in the halls of Congress where free spending politicians are bankrupting our country with policies which favor the majority party's voting constituencies and hurt almost everyone else, including the working class and the poor.
We are troubled by an out of control judiciary which routinely overrides the will of the people, ignores the rule of law and the Constitution and enables elite judges to cavalierly reject the most fundamental building block of society; marriage between a man and a woman.
Like many Americans, I look around and wonder where is the America that Ronald Reagan described as a shining city on a hill whose beacon light guides freedom loving people everywhere?
It is becoming more and more apparent that America as we used to know it will not survive without people of faith going to their knees and praying for divine intervention.
But how could this happen to America? This is a question that more and more Americans are asking.
The small businessman who works 60 - 70 hours a week just to feed his family asks it.
The retired person who has worked a lifetime and has seen his retirement cut in half asks it.
The elderly, sick and handicapped ask it as they grapple with a federal takeover of health care which will ration health care based on a soulless utilitarian yardstick that restricts health care to those who need it the most.
Young people ask it when they graduate from high school and college only to find there are no jobs.
Hard working Americans and the unemployed ask it as they realize that the American dream has been stolen by an elite cabal of big government, big labor and big business interests.
Christians ask it as they wonder about a President who proclaims that Muslims have a right to build a mosque on hallowed land at ground zero. This comes from a president who claims that America is not a Christian nation and who dismissed Christians as people " who cling to their religion."
America is at a historical crossroads. A solid majority of Americans are troubled by the country's slide towards socialism, moral relativism and economic collapse.
However, like the oppressed people of Poland, we Americans need to come together in prayer to save our country. It is not too late to restore the shining city on the hill. But we do need to appreciate the lessons of history since as Sir Edmund Burke said those that do not know learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
One of the significant crossroads depicted in the Nine Days movie was when the Polish people came together to hear Pope John Paul II speak and they suddenly realized that they greatly outnumbered their opponents, the atheistic communists. This realization was a turning point for the Polish people who realized that not only did they not need to be afraid but that it was the communist leaders who should be afraid. In so doing, the people of Poland embraced one of Pope John Paul II's most well known spiritual prescriptions that people of faith "Be Not Afraid".
As in Poland, Americans should be encouraged by the fact that the moral and economic difficulties we are facing are the handiwork of an elite that is relatively small in numbers. A recent online article in the American Spectator entitled "America's Ruling Class - and the Perils of Revolution" describes who this elite ruling class is and how opposed they are to traditional American values like faith in God, freedom and limited government.
This article also notes the somewhat reassuring fact that the elite ruling class is a distinct minority - approximately one-third of all Americans. As such, we do not need to be afraid of this elite minority but we do need to react to the threat they pose to us and our country.
Like the downtrodden but faith-filled Poles who confronted their communist adversaries, Americans need to boldly step out to recapture our country from the clutches of those who cling to morally bankrupt and historically disproven ideologies like moral relativism, atheism, socialism and the like. In order to do so we must begin, like our Polish brethren, by getting down on our knees and invoke God's providence to save America.
Make no mistake, the task ahead of those who would seek to restore America is daunting indeed. We are witnessing an accelerating attack on America's moral, economic and political foundations that is unprecedented. And we did not get here overnight. But the hour is late because a democracy which embraces moral relativism and rejects traditional values like faith in God, traditional marriage and respect for life is living on borrowed time.
There is a strong feeling of unease and discontent which is percolating among Americans. More and more of us are awakening from our slumber and are committing to take bold action to recapture America. It is imperative that the Christian community close ranks in solidarity and "be not afraid" to confront and oppose the elite ruling class who would continue to lead America down the slippery slope we have traveled for some time now. We need to take heart in scripture which tells us that "I can do all things in Christ who strengthens me". Philippians 4:13
In this grave time for America, the effort to restore America must begin with Christians getting down on their knees and fervently praying for God's blessing in the battle that is being waged for America. We would do well to follow Pope John Paul II's example of invoking the Holy Spirit to save his homeland of Poland. A good starting point would be for all Christians to pray unceasingly "Come Holy Spirit and Restore America.' It worked in Poland and it will work again in America if we follow the example of our faithful Polish brothers and sisters in Christ.
Recently, I was greatly inspired seeing the new documentary "Nine Days That Changed The World". Narrated by recent Catholic convert Newt Gingrich and his wife Callista, it is a fascinating story about the life of Pope John Paul II and the singularly significant role the Pontiff had in toppling the communist empire of the Soviet Union.
The movie also noted the collaboration between the Pope and President Ronald Reagan and other courageous political leaders who realized how important was the battle for faith and against totalitarianism that was being fought in Poland in the 1970's and 1980's.
One of the most riveting scenes in the movie occurred when Pope John Paul II addressed an enormous crowd of his Polish countrymen. At one point, the Pope began to pray in a way I have never seen before as he supernaturally invoked the Holy Spirit by chanting "Come Holy Spirit, Change This Land". While the Pope fervently prayed to the Holy Spirit to save Poland, the one million or so Polish faithful spontaneously began to sing a traditional Polish song which honored Christ their savior. It was one of the most moving things I have ever seen or expect to see.
Pope John Paul II's visit to Poland strengthened the faith of his countrymen, unified the country and emboldened them to take on the corrupt communistic regime. Once the Polish people came together in prayer, Poland was a changed country and the days of communism were numbered.
The movie is a powerful testament to what a faithful leader can do to lead a country to victory over an all powerful adversary - the Soviet Empire - all without firing a shot.
While Nine Days That Changed The World tells of an epic struggle between faith, freedom and totalitarianism that occurred decades ago and an ocean away, it is a story which is deeply relevant to the crossroads America is currently facing.
According to recent polls, Americans are worried like never before about the state of our country. We are concerned about our current political leaders who are pushing us headlong towards socialism and totalitarianism. This is a failed ideology which did not work in Europe and resulted in upheaval and popular revolt in Poland and other countries of eastern Europe.
We Christians are particularly troubled by a culture that has embraced moral relativism and rejected the fundamental Christian values America was founded on.
We are troubled by what is happening in the halls of Congress where free spending politicians are bankrupting our country with policies which favor the majority party's voting constituencies and hurt almost everyone else, including the working class and the poor.
We are troubled by an out of control judiciary which routinely overrides the will of the people, ignores the rule of law and the Constitution and enables elite judges to cavalierly reject the most fundamental building block of society; marriage between a man and a woman.
Like many Americans, I look around and wonder where is the America that Ronald Reagan described as a shining city on a hill whose beacon light guides freedom loving people everywhere?
It is becoming more and more apparent that America as we used to know it will not survive without people of faith going to their knees and praying for divine intervention.
But how could this happen to America? This is a question that more and more Americans are asking.
The small businessman who works 60 - 70 hours a week just to feed his family asks it.
The retired person who has worked a lifetime and has seen his retirement cut in half asks it.
The elderly, sick and handicapped ask it as they grapple with a federal takeover of health care which will ration health care based on a soulless utilitarian yardstick that restricts health care to those who need it the most.
Young people ask it when they graduate from high school and college only to find there are no jobs.
Hard working Americans and the unemployed ask it as they realize that the American dream has been stolen by an elite cabal of big government, big labor and big business interests.
Christians ask it as they wonder about a President who proclaims that Muslims have a right to build a mosque on hallowed land at ground zero. This comes from a president who claims that America is not a Christian nation and who dismissed Christians as people " who cling to their religion."
America is at a historical crossroads. A solid majority of Americans are troubled by the country's slide towards socialism, moral relativism and economic collapse.
However, like the oppressed people of Poland, we Americans need to come together in prayer to save our country. It is not too late to restore the shining city on the hill. But we do need to appreciate the lessons of history since as Sir Edmund Burke said those that do not know learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
One of the significant crossroads depicted in the Nine Days movie was when the Polish people came together to hear Pope John Paul II speak and they suddenly realized that they greatly outnumbered their opponents, the atheistic communists. This realization was a turning point for the Polish people who realized that not only did they not need to be afraid but that it was the communist leaders who should be afraid. In so doing, the people of Poland embraced one of Pope John Paul II's most well known spiritual prescriptions that people of faith "Be Not Afraid".
As in Poland, Americans should be encouraged by the fact that the moral and economic difficulties we are facing are the handiwork of an elite that is relatively small in numbers. A recent online article in the American Spectator entitled "America's Ruling Class - and the Perils of Revolution" describes who this elite ruling class is and how opposed they are to traditional American values like faith in God, freedom and limited government.
This article also notes the somewhat reassuring fact that the elite ruling class is a distinct minority - approximately one-third of all Americans. As such, we do not need to be afraid of this elite minority but we do need to react to the threat they pose to us and our country.
Like the downtrodden but faith-filled Poles who confronted their communist adversaries, Americans need to boldly step out to recapture our country from the clutches of those who cling to morally bankrupt and historically disproven ideologies like moral relativism, atheism, socialism and the like. In order to do so we must begin, like our Polish brethren, by getting down on our knees and invoke God's providence to save America.
Make no mistake, the task ahead of those who would seek to restore America is daunting indeed. We are witnessing an accelerating attack on America's moral, economic and political foundations that is unprecedented. And we did not get here overnight. But the hour is late because a democracy which embraces moral relativism and rejects traditional values like faith in God, traditional marriage and respect for life is living on borrowed time.
There is a strong feeling of unease and discontent which is percolating among Americans. More and more of us are awakening from our slumber and are committing to take bold action to recapture America. It is imperative that the Christian community close ranks in solidarity and "be not afraid" to confront and oppose the elite ruling class who would continue to lead America down the slippery slope we have traveled for some time now. We need to take heart in scripture which tells us that "I can do all things in Christ who strengthens me". Philippians 4:13
In this grave time for America, the effort to restore America must begin with Christians getting down on their knees and fervently praying for God's blessing in the battle that is being waged for America. We would do well to follow Pope John Paul II's example of invoking the Holy Spirit to save his homeland of Poland. A good starting point would be for all Christians to pray unceasingly "Come Holy Spirit and Restore America.' It worked in Poland and it will work again in America if we follow the example of our faithful Polish brothers and sisters in Christ.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Pray It Forward – Melanie Pritchard’s Miraculous Recovery
by Mark Henry
It all started out 7:00 a.m. Wednesday morning when Melanie Pritchard texted my wife Tina telling her that she was going into labor and “asking for prayers”. Little did we know how much Melanie would soon need prayers and how a digital juggernaught of prayer would soon be unleashed to save the life of Melanie and her new born daughter, Gabriella Cecilia.
Right after we returned from morning Mass, Melanie’s friend Meghan called Tina in tears telling us that Melanie’s heart stopped during delivery and she desperately needed our prayers.
During the frantic drive to the hospital, my wife was distraught. She loved Melanie like a younger sister. In her own eyes, Melanie’s greatest accomplishments are being a loyal wife to her husband Doug and dutiful mother to her son Brady. To the public, Melanie is a nationally known pro-life speaker and the founder of the Foundation For Life And Love (lifehttp://foundationforlifeandlove.org) an educational organization that seeks to preserve and promote the dignity and sanctity of human life at all stages. Melanie is the former Education Director for Arizona Right To Life.
Melanie is much in demand as a vibrant speaker to youth and adult groups on pro-life issues, modesty and chastity. Melanie and her husband Doug teach marriage preparation classes for the Diocese of Phoenix using Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body writings. Melanie’s Catholic spirituality is steeped in the Culture of Life and thoroughly imbued with the teachings of Pope John Paul II.
My wife first became acquainted with Melanie when Melanie graciously agreed to serve, without pay, as a virtues coordinator in a modesty and chastity apostolate Tina runs. Melanie is a mentor of countless young Catholic girls, a fabulous role model of motherhood, chastity and modestly and treasured by the pro-life community in Phoenix and beyond.
In the dreadfully long drive to the hospital, we felt helpless and wondered what could we possibly do for Melanie? Well, let’s pray a decade of the Rosary. We also prayed to Pope John Paul II that he would intercede for a miraculous healing of Melanie, a prayer that we and countless others would invoke many times over the next 48 hours. After our drive time prayer, we still had quite a bit of time before reaching the hospital so we started calling everyone we knew, requesting fervent prayers and that they “pray it forward” however they could.
I called contacts I had in Catholic media, both new and traditional. Fortunately, I got through to close friends at Immaculate Heart Radio, St. Joseph Communications and other Catholic media outlets who faithfully responded and immediately started broadcasting prayer requests for Melanie on the radio, internet and other media. Of course, Melanie’s friends and family had already started prayer requests of their own and impassioned pleas for prayers were made to many convents, monasteries and religious orders.
Very quickly news of Melanie’s critical condition spread like a digital wildfire with “prayer for Melanie” requests now going “viral” online. The pray it forward juggernaught to save Melanie had begun in earnest with many specifically praying for Pope John Paul II’s intercession to save the life of his loyal spiritual daughter, Melanie.
When we got to the hospital, the news was worse than we thought. Melanie had suffered an amniotic embolism and there was massive internal bleeding. Her heart had stopped again, twice, and they were rushing her into surgery again. There was a real likelihood of heart and kidney failure. I learned later that the medical condition Melanie was experiencing was usually fatal.
There was some good news, however, which was that Melanie and Doug’s new born daughter Gabriella Cecilia was healthy after her emergency C-Section delivery. Additionally, Melanie’s brother Larry, a renowned heart surgeon, was on the scene and keeping a keenly trained medical eye on everything.
Melanie somehow made it through surgery but then suddenly took a turn for the worse. Fr. John Muir, a childhood friend of Melanie and Doug, arrived at the hospital and administered the last rites to Melanie. Melanie’s husband Doug was told that Melanie was slipping away and it was time to say his final goodbye to Melanie, the love of his life. Shortly thereafter, Melanie’s parents and sisters also proceeded to Melanie’s bedside to bid her goodbye.
By now, legions of prayers were storming heaven from Melanie’s bedside, from the local community and throughout the country as well. Prayer vigils were organized at a number of Phoenix parishes and all the way across the country at a Theology of the Body conference in Philadelphia they took a break to pray for Melanie’s healing.
Inspirational stories of personal faith conversions of those hearing and reading about Melanie’s faithful fight for life started coming in. Melanie’s friend Brooke told us about the man in the Midwest who had never attended Church but read the email appeal for prayers for Melanie and was so inspired that he went in to the nearest Church to pray. Brooke’s sister, Meghan, told us of the security guard at the hospital who was a lifelong Catholic who had never been to adoration before but open hearing of Melanie he went to the adoration chapel and spent the night on his knees, in prayer. Father John Parks excitedly told us about the long confession lines after the prayer vigil for Melanie at Mt. Carmel Parish in Tempe, Arizona.
Throughout the country, a rising multitude of prayers were rising up for Melanie and her family. The sheer magnitude of this prayer groundswell first became apparent to me when one of Melanie’s younger tech savvy friends excitedly exclaimed that “Prayers for Melanie” made the “Top 100” on Twitter. I am told that Twitter has one-quarter of a billion visitors, so being in the Top 100 is pretty amazing.
At the hospital, Melanie’s husband Doug, her parents Jim and Sherry Welsch and their other children exhibited a degree of faith and fortitude that was hard for me to fathom. Looking back now, I realize that they were being spiritually lifted up in this most difficult of times by the chorus of prayers being offered for them by rapidly increasing numbers of Catholic faithful throughout the country. .
Something that really stood out to me was Melanie’s father Jim’s reply when I asked him how he was doing. This was after Melanie’s third heart attack and her life was ebbing away. He replied that he loved his daughter dearly, that he was praying for her recovery but the most important thing was that if God was calling Melanie to heaven then he would accept God’s will. To me it was a supernatural manifestation of faith, one that God just could not ignore.
Every hour, against all odds, Melanie continued her fight for life. The fact that she survived emergency surgery Thursday night stunned and amazed a hospital nurse who was in the operating room when Melanie was being operated on. When this nurse returned to work Friday morning, she exclaimed to Melanie’s family that Melanie was a “walking miracle.”
When we returned to the hospital Friday morning, we were astounded to see Melanie awake, talking and pushing a walker around and determined to get out of the hospital so she could resume taking care of her family, especially her new born daughter Gabriella. Many who were there in the hospital and witnessed Melanie’s amazing recovery were starting to realize that God had abudantly answered the fervant prayers of His faithful.
It is above my spiritual station in life to discern whether Melanie’s recovery is a miracle or not. What I do know is that she has survived against overwhelming odds and that the coming together of such a large and diverse nationwide community to pray for her Melanie’s healing is an amazing thing to behold.
Interestingly enough, it appears that the cause of Pope John Paul II’s canonization has been delayed since Sister Marie Simon-Pierre’s previously thought miraculous recovery from Parkinson’s disease may have been premature with the recurrence of Sister Marie’s medical condition. If this is true and the postulators for John Paul II’s cause are one miracle short they may need to look no further than what just happened to Melanie Pritchard here in Phoenix. If a faithful pro-life Catholic mother, wife and leader like Melanie Pritchard could advance the canonization of her spiritual mentor John Paul II, it would be fitting indeed.
Mark Henry is a Catholic writer, author and speaker. He can be reached at mthenrysaz@gmail.com
It all started out 7:00 a.m. Wednesday morning when Melanie Pritchard texted my wife Tina telling her that she was going into labor and “asking for prayers”. Little did we know how much Melanie would soon need prayers and how a digital juggernaught of prayer would soon be unleashed to save the life of Melanie and her new born daughter, Gabriella Cecilia.
Right after we returned from morning Mass, Melanie’s friend Meghan called Tina in tears telling us that Melanie’s heart stopped during delivery and she desperately needed our prayers.
During the frantic drive to the hospital, my wife was distraught. She loved Melanie like a younger sister. In her own eyes, Melanie’s greatest accomplishments are being a loyal wife to her husband Doug and dutiful mother to her son Brady. To the public, Melanie is a nationally known pro-life speaker and the founder of the Foundation For Life And Love (lifehttp://foundationforlifeandlove.org) an educational organization that seeks to preserve and promote the dignity and sanctity of human life at all stages. Melanie is the former Education Director for Arizona Right To Life.
Melanie is much in demand as a vibrant speaker to youth and adult groups on pro-life issues, modesty and chastity. Melanie and her husband Doug teach marriage preparation classes for the Diocese of Phoenix using Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body writings. Melanie’s Catholic spirituality is steeped in the Culture of Life and thoroughly imbued with the teachings of Pope John Paul II.
My wife first became acquainted with Melanie when Melanie graciously agreed to serve, without pay, as a virtues coordinator in a modesty and chastity apostolate Tina runs. Melanie is a mentor of countless young Catholic girls, a fabulous role model of motherhood, chastity and modestly and treasured by the pro-life community in Phoenix and beyond.
In the dreadfully long drive to the hospital, we felt helpless and wondered what could we possibly do for Melanie? Well, let’s pray a decade of the Rosary. We also prayed to Pope John Paul II that he would intercede for a miraculous healing of Melanie, a prayer that we and countless others would invoke many times over the next 48 hours. After our drive time prayer, we still had quite a bit of time before reaching the hospital so we started calling everyone we knew, requesting fervent prayers and that they “pray it forward” however they could.
I called contacts I had in Catholic media, both new and traditional. Fortunately, I got through to close friends at Immaculate Heart Radio, St. Joseph Communications and other Catholic media outlets who faithfully responded and immediately started broadcasting prayer requests for Melanie on the radio, internet and other media. Of course, Melanie’s friends and family had already started prayer requests of their own and impassioned pleas for prayers were made to many convents, monasteries and religious orders.
Very quickly news of Melanie’s critical condition spread like a digital wildfire with “prayer for Melanie” requests now going “viral” online. The pray it forward juggernaught to save Melanie had begun in earnest with many specifically praying for Pope John Paul II’s intercession to save the life of his loyal spiritual daughter, Melanie.
When we got to the hospital, the news was worse than we thought. Melanie had suffered an amniotic embolism and there was massive internal bleeding. Her heart had stopped again, twice, and they were rushing her into surgery again. There was a real likelihood of heart and kidney failure. I learned later that the medical condition Melanie was experiencing was usually fatal.
There was some good news, however, which was that Melanie and Doug’s new born daughter Gabriella Cecilia was healthy after her emergency C-Section delivery. Additionally, Melanie’s brother Larry, a renowned heart surgeon, was on the scene and keeping a keenly trained medical eye on everything.
Melanie somehow made it through surgery but then suddenly took a turn for the worse. Fr. John Muir, a childhood friend of Melanie and Doug, arrived at the hospital and administered the last rites to Melanie. Melanie’s husband Doug was told that Melanie was slipping away and it was time to say his final goodbye to Melanie, the love of his life. Shortly thereafter, Melanie’s parents and sisters also proceeded to Melanie’s bedside to bid her goodbye.
By now, legions of prayers were storming heaven from Melanie’s bedside, from the local community and throughout the country as well. Prayer vigils were organized at a number of Phoenix parishes and all the way across the country at a Theology of the Body conference in Philadelphia they took a break to pray for Melanie’s healing.
Inspirational stories of personal faith conversions of those hearing and reading about Melanie’s faithful fight for life started coming in. Melanie’s friend Brooke told us about the man in the Midwest who had never attended Church but read the email appeal for prayers for Melanie and was so inspired that he went in to the nearest Church to pray. Brooke’s sister, Meghan, told us of the security guard at the hospital who was a lifelong Catholic who had never been to adoration before but open hearing of Melanie he went to the adoration chapel and spent the night on his knees, in prayer. Father John Parks excitedly told us about the long confession lines after the prayer vigil for Melanie at Mt. Carmel Parish in Tempe, Arizona.
Throughout the country, a rising multitude of prayers were rising up for Melanie and her family. The sheer magnitude of this prayer groundswell first became apparent to me when one of Melanie’s younger tech savvy friends excitedly exclaimed that “Prayers for Melanie” made the “Top 100” on Twitter. I am told that Twitter has one-quarter of a billion visitors, so being in the Top 100 is pretty amazing.
At the hospital, Melanie’s husband Doug, her parents Jim and Sherry Welsch and their other children exhibited a degree of faith and fortitude that was hard for me to fathom. Looking back now, I realize that they were being spiritually lifted up in this most difficult of times by the chorus of prayers being offered for them by rapidly increasing numbers of Catholic faithful throughout the country. .
Something that really stood out to me was Melanie’s father Jim’s reply when I asked him how he was doing. This was after Melanie’s third heart attack and her life was ebbing away. He replied that he loved his daughter dearly, that he was praying for her recovery but the most important thing was that if God was calling Melanie to heaven then he would accept God’s will. To me it was a supernatural manifestation of faith, one that God just could not ignore.
Every hour, against all odds, Melanie continued her fight for life. The fact that she survived emergency surgery Thursday night stunned and amazed a hospital nurse who was in the operating room when Melanie was being operated on. When this nurse returned to work Friday morning, she exclaimed to Melanie’s family that Melanie was a “walking miracle.”
When we returned to the hospital Friday morning, we were astounded to see Melanie awake, talking and pushing a walker around and determined to get out of the hospital so she could resume taking care of her family, especially her new born daughter Gabriella. Many who were there in the hospital and witnessed Melanie’s amazing recovery were starting to realize that God had abudantly answered the fervant prayers of His faithful.
It is above my spiritual station in life to discern whether Melanie’s recovery is a miracle or not. What I do know is that she has survived against overwhelming odds and that the coming together of such a large and diverse nationwide community to pray for her Melanie’s healing is an amazing thing to behold.
Interestingly enough, it appears that the cause of Pope John Paul II’s canonization has been delayed since Sister Marie Simon-Pierre’s previously thought miraculous recovery from Parkinson’s disease may have been premature with the recurrence of Sister Marie’s medical condition. If this is true and the postulators for John Paul II’s cause are one miracle short they may need to look no further than what just happened to Melanie Pritchard here in Phoenix. If a faithful pro-life Catholic mother, wife and leader like Melanie Pritchard could advance the canonization of her spiritual mentor John Paul II, it would be fitting indeed.
Mark Henry is a Catholic writer, author and speaker. He can be reached at mthenrysaz@gmail.com
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Obama’s Oval Office Address Fails To Address Oil Spill Crisis
by Mark Henry
The Gulf Oil Spill is an unprecedented environmental catastrophe that presented President Obama an opportunity to show executive leadership and reassure Americans that the federal government is doing all it can to stop the hemorrhaging of oil into the Gulf.
By almost all accounts, President Obama’s Oval Office Address failed to achieve this objective. Obama was roundly criticized by leading liberal media pundits and conservative commentators alike. President Clintons Media Advisor David Gergen stated that this was Obama’s last opportunity to take control of the gulf oil spill problem and that he fell short of it.
Interestingly, some of the most vocal criticism came from liberal media stalwarts like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. The criticized President Obama’s speech for being “Carter like”, lacking in executive command and directionless.
Obama’s address had a military-like tones using terms like “battle” and “siege”. Perhaps this is part of the President’s newly adopted “get tough, be emotional” demeanor to counteract criticisms that he is too detached and unemotional. What is clear is that Obama’s anger was directed at BP and the oil industry as the President stated emphatically that BP will pay for damage sustained in the Gulf.
Getting angry about the oil spill is natural and of course BP will be liable for actions that caused this catastrophe. Federal law already imposes liability on companies like BP for oil spills. However, the extent of BP’s liability should be resolved through the rule of law, not by Presidential fiat. Such autocratic Presidential behavior may pass muster in Venezuela but that has not been the American way, at least until lately.
Many commentators felt that the President’s address focused too much on casting blame for the Gulf oil spill crisis. Americans wanted the President to explain that the federal government was doing all it could do to stop or at least stem the flood of oil into the Gulf. In his Oval Office Address, President Obama failed to do this and disappointed the vast majority of Americans.
What disappointed many viewers - of all political persuasions – is that we are now 60 days into the greatest oil spill in U.S. history and the President was not able to tell us that the federal government has a plan to stop the oil from flooding into the Gulf.
What President Obama did tell us is that this catastrophe reveals a need for a new energy policy. This prompted many conservative critics to complain that Obama was taking advantage of the crisis to promote the controversial “cap and trade” legislation which is stalled in the U.S. Congress.
In arguing for a new greener energy policy, Obama erroneously asserted that we are running out of places to drill for oil. However, critics cited a June 30, 2008 stated that America has enough untapped oil reserves to supply 300 years of America’s demand for oil. These reserves are nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations. The problem is that Democratic Party policies catering to demands of environmental extremists have made most of these reserves off-limits to drilling.
Essentially, Obama used the “running out of places to drill” canard – a problem which his party created - as a pretext to call for yet another new government program; a new energy policy. Many viewers of Obama’s speech feel that much of the script came right out of the community activist play book; agitate people about a problem, be vague about real solutions but do come up with a big government program to “administer” the problem.
Obama’s approach reflects a belief that every crisis has a silver lining that can be exploited to achieve political goals that would otherwise be unattainable. This approach was used by Obama with the recent federal take over of health care. Recall that spiraling health care costs as well as the need to improve access to health care were the pretexts for nationalizing the health care insurance industry. Fast forward to the present oil spill crisis which presents a dual opportunity to push for cap and trade policy and subjugate BP and the oil industry to more federal control.
In short, Obama’s Oval Office address was a historic disappointment that left many Americans of all political stripes wishing that the President would have focused on solving the continuing Gulf oil spill crisis rather than engage in spirited finger pointing. It was also an inopportune time to push the controversial cap and trade legislation under the guise of a new greener national energy policy. Mr. President, it is time to table cap and trade start working seriously on the real environmental crisis; the flood of oil into the Gulf.
Solving serious national problems requires experienced executive leadership rather the community activist leadership style. Without it, our pristine gulf coast environment will continue to needlessly suffer more than it has to.
The Gulf Oil Spill is an unprecedented environmental catastrophe that presented President Obama an opportunity to show executive leadership and reassure Americans that the federal government is doing all it can to stop the hemorrhaging of oil into the Gulf.
By almost all accounts, President Obama’s Oval Office Address failed to achieve this objective. Obama was roundly criticized by leading liberal media pundits and conservative commentators alike. President Clintons Media Advisor David Gergen stated that this was Obama’s last opportunity to take control of the gulf oil spill problem and that he fell short of it.
Interestingly, some of the most vocal criticism came from liberal media stalwarts like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. The criticized President Obama’s speech for being “Carter like”, lacking in executive command and directionless.
Obama’s address had a military-like tones using terms like “battle” and “siege”. Perhaps this is part of the President’s newly adopted “get tough, be emotional” demeanor to counteract criticisms that he is too detached and unemotional. What is clear is that Obama’s anger was directed at BP and the oil industry as the President stated emphatically that BP will pay for damage sustained in the Gulf.
Getting angry about the oil spill is natural and of course BP will be liable for actions that caused this catastrophe. Federal law already imposes liability on companies like BP for oil spills. However, the extent of BP’s liability should be resolved through the rule of law, not by Presidential fiat. Such autocratic Presidential behavior may pass muster in Venezuela but that has not been the American way, at least until lately.
Many commentators felt that the President’s address focused too much on casting blame for the Gulf oil spill crisis. Americans wanted the President to explain that the federal government was doing all it could do to stop or at least stem the flood of oil into the Gulf. In his Oval Office Address, President Obama failed to do this and disappointed the vast majority of Americans.
What disappointed many viewers - of all political persuasions – is that we are now 60 days into the greatest oil spill in U.S. history and the President was not able to tell us that the federal government has a plan to stop the oil from flooding into the Gulf.
What President Obama did tell us is that this catastrophe reveals a need for a new energy policy. This prompted many conservative critics to complain that Obama was taking advantage of the crisis to promote the controversial “cap and trade” legislation which is stalled in the U.S. Congress.
In arguing for a new greener energy policy, Obama erroneously asserted that we are running out of places to drill for oil. However, critics cited a June 30, 2008 stated that America has enough untapped oil reserves to supply 300 years of America’s demand for oil. These reserves are nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations. The problem is that Democratic Party policies catering to demands of environmental extremists have made most of these reserves off-limits to drilling.
Essentially, Obama used the “running out of places to drill” canard – a problem which his party created - as a pretext to call for yet another new government program; a new energy policy. Many viewers of Obama’s speech feel that much of the script came right out of the community activist play book; agitate people about a problem, be vague about real solutions but do come up with a big government program to “administer” the problem.
Obama’s approach reflects a belief that every crisis has a silver lining that can be exploited to achieve political goals that would otherwise be unattainable. This approach was used by Obama with the recent federal take over of health care. Recall that spiraling health care costs as well as the need to improve access to health care were the pretexts for nationalizing the health care insurance industry. Fast forward to the present oil spill crisis which presents a dual opportunity to push for cap and trade policy and subjugate BP and the oil industry to more federal control.
In short, Obama’s Oval Office address was a historic disappointment that left many Americans of all political stripes wishing that the President would have focused on solving the continuing Gulf oil spill crisis rather than engage in spirited finger pointing. It was also an inopportune time to push the controversial cap and trade legislation under the guise of a new greener national energy policy. Mr. President, it is time to table cap and trade start working seriously on the real environmental crisis; the flood of oil into the Gulf.
Solving serious national problems requires experienced executive leadership rather the community activist leadership style. Without it, our pristine gulf coast environment will continue to needlessly suffer more than it has to.
Monday, May 31, 2010
A Tribute To Dad, Old Glory And God
By Mark Henry
On this Memorial Day, we are called to honor and remember those who have served our country. We must never forget that the freedom we take for granted is not free and comes with a heavy price. It is also a time to remember that we are one nation under God and we honor those in the military who sacrificed to keep it that way.
While all Americans need to be thankful for the service of our military veterans, there are those among us who owe a particular debt of gratitude to family members who served in the armed forces.
This Memorial Day is particularly significant for my family since my father, a veteran of WWII and the Korean War, was interred this week at Punchbowl National Cemetery in Hawaii. My father was one of a whole generation of young men who were pressed into military service when WWII broke out. Since Dad was not keen to fight in the trenches, he opted to enroll in flight training school to become a Marine aviator. Barely meeting the pilot minimum age requirement of 18, he went on to flight training school and was rushed into air combat in the Pacific.
By military standards, Dad had a successful tour of duty as he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross among other wartime citations and awards. However, Dad never liked to talk much about his experiences in the war. In fact, the Catholic chaplain at my father’s memorial service this week nailed it when he said that if my father were here he would say he did nothing special, nothing but his duty.
My father’s memorial service last week was with "military honors" and was a deeply moving experience. Since I never served in the military, I had no idea what I was in for. Seeing an honor guard of seven Marine soldiers firing their rifles into the air three times was awe-inspiring. The ceremonial playing of taps by a lone bugler, followed by eight additional Marine honor guards presenting the American flag to me as the next of kin was an unforgettable experience.
Many Americans do not realize or appreciate the deep Christian symbolism which is reflected in the flag presentation ceremony at a military funeral. The honoring of God in the presentation of the American flag was personally comforting and surprising in this age where our federal government seems so determined to remove any semblance of Christian faith from the public square.
Each individual fold of the flag has symbolic significance, with a number of folds honoring God and traditional Christian values. At my father’s service, the flag was folded thirteen times by eight Marine honor guards, standing in two rows of four honor guards each.
The first fold of the flag is a symbol of life. The second fold of the flag is a symbol of a belief in eternal life. The fourth fold of the flag represents man’s fallibility, man’s need to trust in God and the importance of turning to God for His divine guidance in times of war and peace.
The twelfth fold of the flag symbolizes eternity and glorifies God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The thirteenth and last fold of the flag reveals the stars on the flag and symbolizes the United States' national motto, “In God We Trust.”
My father’s military memorial service, especially the flag presentation ceremony, was an experience that will live with me all my days. However, what made Dad’s memorial service not just moving but spiritually significant was realizing how different events in my father’s life, like the ceremonial folding of the American flag, manifested God’s providence and led my father inexorably closer to God.
Earlier in his life, my father never seemed to have too much of an interest in his faith. While he occasionally joined the family for services on holidays and other occasions, it seemed more in his character, as the battle hardened Marine combat pilot, to be the breadwinner, disciplinarian and sports coach rather than spiritual leader of the family. While the Lord may have called Dad, he was not yet willing to listen and the Lord's call fell, for the moment, on deaf ears.
However, during his final years my father’s worsening physical condition provided him a timely opportunity to reflect on his life, his accomplishments, his regrets and also his gradually awakening desire to come closer to Christ.
During this stage of Dad’s life, his numerous hospitalizations required that we, his family, “stand guard” at his bedside and literally defend his life. I believed it was the least we could do in return for all Dad did for us and his country. The need for this was clear as each time Dad was hospitalized the hospital staff tried to convince us that Dad was dying and it was futile and pointless to insist that he received life-sustaining care like food and water intravenously. According to the hospital staff, the better thing to do was to medicate him, not provide him nutrition and hydration and let him die.
Essentially, the hospital staff wanted us to agree that Dad could be euthanized. Fortunately, we resisted the unrelenting pressure of the hospital staff to terminally sedate Dad and each time Dad walked out of the hospital on his own.
While I did not realize it at the time, I eventually came to appreciate the eternal spiritual significance of the battle that we were waging for Dad. He needed just a little more time for God’s loving arms to embrace him. Had the hospital had its way and been able to euthanize Dad, he may not have come back to Christ and his soul could have been lost forever.
After Dad was discharged from the hospital for the last time, he sat down with me and the final and most joyous chapter of his life unfolded. I remember it well, after having lunch with my father and returning to his apartment we sat down and he asked me to tell him about my faith in Christ! Hearing his request brought a lump to my throat and tears to my eyes. Dad had now unfolded the first and second folds in the flag, he was acknowledging the importance of life and eternity.
This conversation with my father was the first in a sequence of memorable events that ended with Dad accepting Christ as his Lord and Savior. Soon enough, Dad began attending church services with us. He also started a daily prayer life, sometimes on his own and sometimes with friends of his who also had been encouraging him to renew his Catholic faith.
The Lord’s plan for my father was finally unfolding before my very eyes. By now, my father’s failing health made it apparent that he may not have long to live. He was now at the fourth fold in the flag and had recognized his own fallibility and his need to turn to God in this most difficult of times.
All to soon, Dad was admitted to the hospital for the last time and he took his final step of spiritual reconciliation - he confessed his sins to the hospital Chaplain and received the last rites. Dad was now unfolding the final folds in the flag where he recognized the need to reconcile with God, to glorify Him and to trust in His saving grace. Within twenty-four hours, the Lord tenderly reached out and took Dad home.
My father’s memorial service at Punchbowl last week was a tribute to a man, his service to country and his Catholic faith. Like the faith inspired folding of the American flag, Dad’s life journey was a testimony to the values of life, honor and God’s providence. My father, the prodigal soldier, finished faithful which was God’s plan for him all along. Semper Fidelis, Dad.
On this Memorial Day, we are called to honor and remember those who have served our country. We must never forget that the freedom we take for granted is not free and comes with a heavy price. It is also a time to remember that we are one nation under God and we honor those in the military who sacrificed to keep it that way.
While all Americans need to be thankful for the service of our military veterans, there are those among us who owe a particular debt of gratitude to family members who served in the armed forces.
This Memorial Day is particularly significant for my family since my father, a veteran of WWII and the Korean War, was interred this week at Punchbowl National Cemetery in Hawaii. My father was one of a whole generation of young men who were pressed into military service when WWII broke out. Since Dad was not keen to fight in the trenches, he opted to enroll in flight training school to become a Marine aviator. Barely meeting the pilot minimum age requirement of 18, he went on to flight training school and was rushed into air combat in the Pacific.
By military standards, Dad had a successful tour of duty as he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross among other wartime citations and awards. However, Dad never liked to talk much about his experiences in the war. In fact, the Catholic chaplain at my father’s memorial service this week nailed it when he said that if my father were here he would say he did nothing special, nothing but his duty.
My father’s memorial service last week was with "military honors" and was a deeply moving experience. Since I never served in the military, I had no idea what I was in for. Seeing an honor guard of seven Marine soldiers firing their rifles into the air three times was awe-inspiring. The ceremonial playing of taps by a lone bugler, followed by eight additional Marine honor guards presenting the American flag to me as the next of kin was an unforgettable experience.
Many Americans do not realize or appreciate the deep Christian symbolism which is reflected in the flag presentation ceremony at a military funeral. The honoring of God in the presentation of the American flag was personally comforting and surprising in this age where our federal government seems so determined to remove any semblance of Christian faith from the public square.
Each individual fold of the flag has symbolic significance, with a number of folds honoring God and traditional Christian values. At my father’s service, the flag was folded thirteen times by eight Marine honor guards, standing in two rows of four honor guards each.
The first fold of the flag is a symbol of life. The second fold of the flag is a symbol of a belief in eternal life. The fourth fold of the flag represents man’s fallibility, man’s need to trust in God and the importance of turning to God for His divine guidance in times of war and peace.
The twelfth fold of the flag symbolizes eternity and glorifies God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The thirteenth and last fold of the flag reveals the stars on the flag and symbolizes the United States' national motto, “In God We Trust.”
My father’s military memorial service, especially the flag presentation ceremony, was an experience that will live with me all my days. However, what made Dad’s memorial service not just moving but spiritually significant was realizing how different events in my father’s life, like the ceremonial folding of the American flag, manifested God’s providence and led my father inexorably closer to God.
Earlier in his life, my father never seemed to have too much of an interest in his faith. While he occasionally joined the family for services on holidays and other occasions, it seemed more in his character, as the battle hardened Marine combat pilot, to be the breadwinner, disciplinarian and sports coach rather than spiritual leader of the family. While the Lord may have called Dad, he was not yet willing to listen and the Lord's call fell, for the moment, on deaf ears.
However, during his final years my father’s worsening physical condition provided him a timely opportunity to reflect on his life, his accomplishments, his regrets and also his gradually awakening desire to come closer to Christ.
During this stage of Dad’s life, his numerous hospitalizations required that we, his family, “stand guard” at his bedside and literally defend his life. I believed it was the least we could do in return for all Dad did for us and his country. The need for this was clear as each time Dad was hospitalized the hospital staff tried to convince us that Dad was dying and it was futile and pointless to insist that he received life-sustaining care like food and water intravenously. According to the hospital staff, the better thing to do was to medicate him, not provide him nutrition and hydration and let him die.
Essentially, the hospital staff wanted us to agree that Dad could be euthanized. Fortunately, we resisted the unrelenting pressure of the hospital staff to terminally sedate Dad and each time Dad walked out of the hospital on his own.
While I did not realize it at the time, I eventually came to appreciate the eternal spiritual significance of the battle that we were waging for Dad. He needed just a little more time for God’s loving arms to embrace him. Had the hospital had its way and been able to euthanize Dad, he may not have come back to Christ and his soul could have been lost forever.
After Dad was discharged from the hospital for the last time, he sat down with me and the final and most joyous chapter of his life unfolded. I remember it well, after having lunch with my father and returning to his apartment we sat down and he asked me to tell him about my faith in Christ! Hearing his request brought a lump to my throat and tears to my eyes. Dad had now unfolded the first and second folds in the flag, he was acknowledging the importance of life and eternity.
This conversation with my father was the first in a sequence of memorable events that ended with Dad accepting Christ as his Lord and Savior. Soon enough, Dad began attending church services with us. He also started a daily prayer life, sometimes on his own and sometimes with friends of his who also had been encouraging him to renew his Catholic faith.
The Lord’s plan for my father was finally unfolding before my very eyes. By now, my father’s failing health made it apparent that he may not have long to live. He was now at the fourth fold in the flag and had recognized his own fallibility and his need to turn to God in this most difficult of times.
All to soon, Dad was admitted to the hospital for the last time and he took his final step of spiritual reconciliation - he confessed his sins to the hospital Chaplain and received the last rites. Dad was now unfolding the final folds in the flag where he recognized the need to reconcile with God, to glorify Him and to trust in His saving grace. Within twenty-four hours, the Lord tenderly reached out and took Dad home.
My father’s memorial service at Punchbowl last week was a tribute to a man, his service to country and his Catholic faith. Like the faith inspired folding of the American flag, Dad’s life journey was a testimony to the values of life, honor and God’s providence. My father, the prodigal soldier, finished faithful which was God’s plan for him all along. Semper Fidelis, Dad.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Lessons Learned From Greece: Dominos and Subsidiarity
by Mark Henry
The recent economic chaos in Greece has generated shockwaves felt all the way to America with many financial commentators opining that last weeks dramatic stock market losses were due to Wall Street anxiety about the economic problems in Greece and what it portends for other countries which have adopted economic policies similar to those adopted in Greece.
The recently announced bailout of Greece by the E.U. Union and IMF are stop gap measures that fail to address structural weaknesses that are firmly entrenched in most European economies. These stress fractures of the welfare state are now spreading to the U.S. economy and the economic policies of America’s current political leaders threatens to exacerbate the economic hardship that may be in America’s future.
Political leaders in Europe and America would do well to adopt economic policies guided by pertinent Catholic social doctrine, including the principle of subsidiarity. If policymakers reject these Catholic teachings they will do so at their own peril and jeopardize the well being of the countries they have been entrusted to protect.
Essentially, Greece’s financial meltdown is due to the government’s socialistic leaning policies which, inter alia, promote government entitlements and discourage private enterprise. The Greek government policies favors government employees who receive higher wages, better benefits and more generous retirement than private sector employees. These policies require increasing levels of taxation and result in significant redistribution of wealth.
Greece’s policies favoring public employees are seen as a quid pro quo for the political support of these well provided for public employees. However, a recession weakened economy in Greece, combined with costly government entitlements has pushed the country to the brink of financial collapse. The European Union and the IMF have agreed to a monetary bailout of Greece in exchange for austerity measures which Greece’s ruling socialist leaders have been compelled to implement. These austerity measures include deep pay cuts to the salaries and pensions of government workers.
What the Greeks are learning – and what other developed countries in Europe are having to cope with – is that socialist economies doesn’t work very well and are not sustainable over the long-term. That’s why the E.U. and IMF have to bail out Greece.
The bigger problem is that other European countries like England, Spain, Portugal and Ireland also have “Greek” economic problems of their own with unsustainable overspending on government entitlement programs. Like Greece, these countries have also overpromised entitlements which they can no longer afford give to their citizens. The fear is that Greece is just the first domino to fall and if other countries follow the E.U. and IMF are going to be unwilling or unable to bail these other countries out. This could result in sovereign defaults with disastrous effects on the worldwide economy.
How can we understand the causes of this growing economic problem and discern the direction our political leaders should take to deal with it? As is usually the case, Catholic teachings provide helpful guidance on how the faithful should analyze this pressing problem.
Pope John Paul II harshly criticized the welfare state in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus wherein he stated that the welfare state undermined this core principle of subsidiarity. This Catholic teaching states that when something can be done locally by a smaller simpler organization this is better than central planning type action by a larger and more complex organization. This tenet safeguards the ideals of limited government and personal freedom and stands squarely opposed to the welfare state’s goals of centralization and bureaucracy.
John Paul II warned us that the welfare state discourages human initiative and results in an excessive increase of public bureaucracies. This results in an enormous increase in spending by a government whose goal is to achieve its own statist agenda rather than to serve the public.
What we are seeing in Europe are the disastrous financial consequences that come to countries that reject subsidiarity and embrace the failed economic model of socialism. Recent images of Greek government workers rioting in the streets in response to limited austerity measures announced by Greece’s socialist ruling party is an omen of economic chaos that can spread throughout Europe and to America if unsustainable government entitlements are not brought under control.
However, the “fix” to these serious national economic problems is not a knee-jerk return to unfettered capitalism. The seeds of the serious recession we have been going through in the U.S. were planted during the Bush administration which was roundly criticized for excessive government spending and ineffectual regulation of the financial industry. And this occurred with an administration that professed support for free market policies instead of socialism.
While socialism’s economic failures are obvious and historically documented, improperly regulated capitalism has had its fair share of train wrecks as well. The 2008 stock market crash, recent banking and insurance industry failures and the collapse in real estate values were the handiwork of capitalism gone wild.
It is true that misguided government intervention into the free market arena was at least partially responsible for some of these economic collapses.
However, regardless of whether these economic failures were caused by free wheeling capitalists, wrong-headed statist minded politicians or all of the above, Catholic social teachings in the economic realm can be a light on the path to improving the economic well being of all of us.
In his recent Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict reveals his keen insight on some of the financial abuses which caused the recent meltdown on Wall Street. Pope Benedict writes “Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful one… The Church's social doctrine holds that authentically human social relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity can also be conducted within economic activity.” (CV 36) Benedict goes on to say that “Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers” (CV 65).
In light of these pressing economic problems how can Catholic’s chart a path which avoid the abject failures of socialism while avoiding the excesses of unbridled capitalism?
Steering clear of socialism’s bureaucratic welfare state is clearly called for. America needs to learn from and not embrace the failed social welfare system currently wreaking economic havoc in Europe. These failed ideologies have jumped the pond and are taking hold in America under the statist policies of the Obama administration and the majority party leaders.
The most recent example of European modeled statist policies being implemented here at home is the federal takeover of health care insurance, destined to be a huge public entitlement that will raise taxes but is not likely to measurably improve health care.
Another example of the recent drift towards the European style social welfare state is the accelerated growth of both the numbers of government employees and the benefits paid in the public sector. According to leading economic historian John Steele Gordon, federal workers currently earn almost twice what their private-sector counterparts earn. Further, Obama's new spending programs will result in a 14.5 percent increase in the number of federal employees in just two years.
A variety of other policies the America’s political leaders are pushing will, if unchecked, take us down the path of unsustainable government spending which is creating economic chaos in Europe.
On the other hand, an unconditional embrace of purely economic driven capitalism, bereft of any ethical parameters, is not the answer either. We have recently seen that this economic philosophy generally works but is accompanied by periodic upheaval that leaves far too many suffering in its wake. Pope Benedict’s Caritas In Veritate highlights the need for economic practices which are not just efficient and productive but are also based on ethical principles which promote positive human development.
Pope Benedict’s refreshing economic philosophy manifested itself recently in a recent study by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. This study was issued by the Pontifical Academy during its recent April 30 - May 4 session, just as the economic chaos in Greece was coming to a head.
Pontifical Academy Chair Mary Ann Glendon called for financial reform to promote “the essentially ethical nature of economics as an activity of and for human beings.” The study also attributed part of the current economic instabilities to an overreliance on speculative financial activities that are separated from productive activity in the real economy.
While this recent study shied away from detailed economic policy directives, it is sensible to conclude that we are called by Catholic social doctrine to take a middle path somewhere in between the two extremes of socialism and laissez faire capitalism.
To the extent that these recent teachings call for increased government oversight of the economy, it would be mistaken to interpret this as support for the type of top down centralized government control of major economic sectors like the recent federal government takeover of the health insurance industry.
While Catholic social doctrine acknowledges a proper role for government to play that role is purposely limited. Government is called to regulate but not to dominate or unduly control commerce. A country’s government and economic system need to coexist and have a complimentary relationship in order to advance the overall well being of a country’s citizens.
Fundamental Catholic teachings on both subsidiarity and the proper but limited regulatory role of government are a critical light on the path to guide socio-economic policies to maintain the delicate balance between government and economics. Political leaders who disregard these important Catholic social teachings jeopardize their own political futures and imperil the well being of the citizens they are entrusted to lead.
The recent economic chaos in Greece has generated shockwaves felt all the way to America with many financial commentators opining that last weeks dramatic stock market losses were due to Wall Street anxiety about the economic problems in Greece and what it portends for other countries which have adopted economic policies similar to those adopted in Greece.
The recently announced bailout of Greece by the E.U. Union and IMF are stop gap measures that fail to address structural weaknesses that are firmly entrenched in most European economies. These stress fractures of the welfare state are now spreading to the U.S. economy and the economic policies of America’s current political leaders threatens to exacerbate the economic hardship that may be in America’s future.
Political leaders in Europe and America would do well to adopt economic policies guided by pertinent Catholic social doctrine, including the principle of subsidiarity. If policymakers reject these Catholic teachings they will do so at their own peril and jeopardize the well being of the countries they have been entrusted to protect.
Essentially, Greece’s financial meltdown is due to the government’s socialistic leaning policies which, inter alia, promote government entitlements and discourage private enterprise. The Greek government policies favors government employees who receive higher wages, better benefits and more generous retirement than private sector employees. These policies require increasing levels of taxation and result in significant redistribution of wealth.
Greece’s policies favoring public employees are seen as a quid pro quo for the political support of these well provided for public employees. However, a recession weakened economy in Greece, combined with costly government entitlements has pushed the country to the brink of financial collapse. The European Union and the IMF have agreed to a monetary bailout of Greece in exchange for austerity measures which Greece’s ruling socialist leaders have been compelled to implement. These austerity measures include deep pay cuts to the salaries and pensions of government workers.
What the Greeks are learning – and what other developed countries in Europe are having to cope with – is that socialist economies doesn’t work very well and are not sustainable over the long-term. That’s why the E.U. and IMF have to bail out Greece.
The bigger problem is that other European countries like England, Spain, Portugal and Ireland also have “Greek” economic problems of their own with unsustainable overspending on government entitlement programs. Like Greece, these countries have also overpromised entitlements which they can no longer afford give to their citizens. The fear is that Greece is just the first domino to fall and if other countries follow the E.U. and IMF are going to be unwilling or unable to bail these other countries out. This could result in sovereign defaults with disastrous effects on the worldwide economy.
How can we understand the causes of this growing economic problem and discern the direction our political leaders should take to deal with it? As is usually the case, Catholic teachings provide helpful guidance on how the faithful should analyze this pressing problem.
Pope John Paul II harshly criticized the welfare state in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus wherein he stated that the welfare state undermined this core principle of subsidiarity. This Catholic teaching states that when something can be done locally by a smaller simpler organization this is better than central planning type action by a larger and more complex organization. This tenet safeguards the ideals of limited government and personal freedom and stands squarely opposed to the welfare state’s goals of centralization and bureaucracy.
John Paul II warned us that the welfare state discourages human initiative and results in an excessive increase of public bureaucracies. This results in an enormous increase in spending by a government whose goal is to achieve its own statist agenda rather than to serve the public.
What we are seeing in Europe are the disastrous financial consequences that come to countries that reject subsidiarity and embrace the failed economic model of socialism. Recent images of Greek government workers rioting in the streets in response to limited austerity measures announced by Greece’s socialist ruling party is an omen of economic chaos that can spread throughout Europe and to America if unsustainable government entitlements are not brought under control.
However, the “fix” to these serious national economic problems is not a knee-jerk return to unfettered capitalism. The seeds of the serious recession we have been going through in the U.S. were planted during the Bush administration which was roundly criticized for excessive government spending and ineffectual regulation of the financial industry. And this occurred with an administration that professed support for free market policies instead of socialism.
While socialism’s economic failures are obvious and historically documented, improperly regulated capitalism has had its fair share of train wrecks as well. The 2008 stock market crash, recent banking and insurance industry failures and the collapse in real estate values were the handiwork of capitalism gone wild.
It is true that misguided government intervention into the free market arena was at least partially responsible for some of these economic collapses.
However, regardless of whether these economic failures were caused by free wheeling capitalists, wrong-headed statist minded politicians or all of the above, Catholic social teachings in the economic realm can be a light on the path to improving the economic well being of all of us.
In his recent Encyclical Letter Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict reveals his keen insight on some of the financial abuses which caused the recent meltdown on Wall Street. Pope Benedict writes “Economy and finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful one… The Church's social doctrine holds that authentically human social relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity can also be conducted within economic activity.” (CV 36) Benedict goes on to say that “Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers” (CV 65).
In light of these pressing economic problems how can Catholic’s chart a path which avoid the abject failures of socialism while avoiding the excesses of unbridled capitalism?
Steering clear of socialism’s bureaucratic welfare state is clearly called for. America needs to learn from and not embrace the failed social welfare system currently wreaking economic havoc in Europe. These failed ideologies have jumped the pond and are taking hold in America under the statist policies of the Obama administration and the majority party leaders.
The most recent example of European modeled statist policies being implemented here at home is the federal takeover of health care insurance, destined to be a huge public entitlement that will raise taxes but is not likely to measurably improve health care.
Another example of the recent drift towards the European style social welfare state is the accelerated growth of both the numbers of government employees and the benefits paid in the public sector. According to leading economic historian John Steele Gordon, federal workers currently earn almost twice what their private-sector counterparts earn. Further, Obama's new spending programs will result in a 14.5 percent increase in the number of federal employees in just two years.
A variety of other policies the America’s political leaders are pushing will, if unchecked, take us down the path of unsustainable government spending which is creating economic chaos in Europe.
On the other hand, an unconditional embrace of purely economic driven capitalism, bereft of any ethical parameters, is not the answer either. We have recently seen that this economic philosophy generally works but is accompanied by periodic upheaval that leaves far too many suffering in its wake. Pope Benedict’s Caritas In Veritate highlights the need for economic practices which are not just efficient and productive but are also based on ethical principles which promote positive human development.
Pope Benedict’s refreshing economic philosophy manifested itself recently in a recent study by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. This study was issued by the Pontifical Academy during its recent April 30 - May 4 session, just as the economic chaos in Greece was coming to a head.
Pontifical Academy Chair Mary Ann Glendon called for financial reform to promote “the essentially ethical nature of economics as an activity of and for human beings.” The study also attributed part of the current economic instabilities to an overreliance on speculative financial activities that are separated from productive activity in the real economy.
While this recent study shied away from detailed economic policy directives, it is sensible to conclude that we are called by Catholic social doctrine to take a middle path somewhere in between the two extremes of socialism and laissez faire capitalism.
To the extent that these recent teachings call for increased government oversight of the economy, it would be mistaken to interpret this as support for the type of top down centralized government control of major economic sectors like the recent federal government takeover of the health insurance industry.
While Catholic social doctrine acknowledges a proper role for government to play that role is purposely limited. Government is called to regulate but not to dominate or unduly control commerce. A country’s government and economic system need to coexist and have a complimentary relationship in order to advance the overall well being of a country’s citizens.
Fundamental Catholic teachings on both subsidiarity and the proper but limited regulatory role of government are a critical light on the path to guide socio-economic policies to maintain the delicate balance between government and economics. Political leaders who disregard these important Catholic social teachings jeopardize their own political futures and imperil the well being of the citizens they are entrusted to lead.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Restoring The Primacy of Christian Values in America
by Mark Henry
The fact that America has elected the most pro-abortion and most socialist leaning U.S President and Congress in our Country’s history says much about how far our country has strayed from the traditional Christian values upon which our country was established.
Quo Vadis – where is America headed? With Congress’s passage of the federal health insurance takeover bill, America has lurched down the path of socialism. Emboldened by this victory, the far left leaders of the Democratic party will likely seek to further increase the power of the federal government over the private sector and the individual by way of new laws, regulations and policies.
With the federal health insurance takeover finally completed, a wide array of statist oriented policies are likely to follow which will dramatically expand the role of government and further undermine the important impact that the values of life, faith and family historically have had in America. These new policies will result in the federal government promoting abortion, euthanasia, and non-traditional marriage at an unprecedented level.
Additionally, we will no doubt see new entitlement programs established that will stifle personal freedom and initiative and, instead, will usher in greater citizenry dependence on big government. The unprecedented growth in government that will follow is contrary to the fundamental principle of Catholic social doctrine of subsidiarity. Essentially, this important Church doctrine states that decisions are best made at a smaller, more local level, rather than issuing forth from a more distant centralized source.
The common thread running through the federal health insurance industry takeover and other statist policies the government is pursuing is a modus operandi to transform America into a post Christian nation. What the majority party leaders seek is to subordinate traditional values like faith, family and personal responsibility and to elevate moral relativism, utilitarianism, narcissism and other secular values. We cannot allow them to do this.
Of course, these striking changes in government policy should not come as a big a surprise to most clear thinking Americans. This is because during his campaign for the Presidency, Barrack Hussein Obama often said that he intended to transform America while he studiously avoided saying just what it was he wanted to change. Regrettably, the mantra of unspecified change was good enough for far too many Americans.
Now it is patently clear what the President and the Democratic leadership plan to do to America and its citizens. What they envision is an America that looks more like the secular and socialistic countries of Europe and nothing at all like the traditional Christian values based country our founders established.
Any serious doubt about this euro-centric direction vanishes when you see that the major policy initiatives of the Obama administration are substantially identical to the statist big government policies followed by the dominant countries of the European Union. This administration’s policies concerning health care, abortion, same sex marriage, global warming and taxation are all in lock step with prevailing European Union policies.
Well, what is so wrong with coming back into the fold and returning to the values of Europe, the land where many of our ancestors hailed from? Well, to begin with today’s Europe is a world apart from the traditional Christian values based civilization of either our forefathers or the Europe which American soldiers died defending in World Wars I and II. Foundational American values like respect for life, traditional families and freedom of religion are on the wane in most of Europe.
Our Constitution’s Bill of Rights expressly protects the free exercise of religion. On the other hand, the Constitution of the European Union intentionally lacks any acknowledgment of the singularly important role that Christianity has had in shaping European civilization. While the ramifications of such a collective rejection of Europe’s Christian heritage is beyond the scope of this article, it suffices to say that our American Constitution and the European Union’s Constitution are oceans apart and America is much better off for it, thank you.
Therein lies the crux of the problem. President Obama and the leftist leadership of the Democratic party would like to build a statist bridge to take America down the path towards the European socialist welfare state.
However, to take America on this transformative journey, Democrat leaders will need to cajole more Americans into sacrificing their traditional values like faith, freedom and personal responsibility and, instead, get Americans to accept these new statist policies and leftist secular values. Faithful Catholics need to join together with increasing numbers of Americans who will oppose these efforts to transform America into a nation the Founders would scarcely recognize.
What Can Catholic Christians Do To Restore America’s Christian Values? With the Democrat leadership’s game plan now more obvious, the only questions unanswered are whether the Catholic faithful are prepared to fight for our country’s Christian heritage and, if so, how are we to wage that battle?
There are critically important actions we the Catholic faithful need to begin taking immediately to restore and preserve America’s Christian heritage for future generations. The strategies we need to pursue run the gamut and include ecclesial, cultural, economic, educational, legal and, most assuredly, political action. More will be said in the next issue in this series of articles; The Fight to Preserve America’s Christian Heritage.
The fact that America has elected the most pro-abortion and most socialist leaning U.S President and Congress in our Country’s history says much about how far our country has strayed from the traditional Christian values upon which our country was established.
Quo Vadis – where is America headed? With Congress’s passage of the federal health insurance takeover bill, America has lurched down the path of socialism. Emboldened by this victory, the far left leaders of the Democratic party will likely seek to further increase the power of the federal government over the private sector and the individual by way of new laws, regulations and policies.
With the federal health insurance takeover finally completed, a wide array of statist oriented policies are likely to follow which will dramatically expand the role of government and further undermine the important impact that the values of life, faith and family historically have had in America. These new policies will result in the federal government promoting abortion, euthanasia, and non-traditional marriage at an unprecedented level.
Additionally, we will no doubt see new entitlement programs established that will stifle personal freedom and initiative and, instead, will usher in greater citizenry dependence on big government. The unprecedented growth in government that will follow is contrary to the fundamental principle of Catholic social doctrine of subsidiarity. Essentially, this important Church doctrine states that decisions are best made at a smaller, more local level, rather than issuing forth from a more distant centralized source.
The common thread running through the federal health insurance industry takeover and other statist policies the government is pursuing is a modus operandi to transform America into a post Christian nation. What the majority party leaders seek is to subordinate traditional values like faith, family and personal responsibility and to elevate moral relativism, utilitarianism, narcissism and other secular values. We cannot allow them to do this.
Of course, these striking changes in government policy should not come as a big a surprise to most clear thinking Americans. This is because during his campaign for the Presidency, Barrack Hussein Obama often said that he intended to transform America while he studiously avoided saying just what it was he wanted to change. Regrettably, the mantra of unspecified change was good enough for far too many Americans.
Now it is patently clear what the President and the Democratic leadership plan to do to America and its citizens. What they envision is an America that looks more like the secular and socialistic countries of Europe and nothing at all like the traditional Christian values based country our founders established.
Any serious doubt about this euro-centric direction vanishes when you see that the major policy initiatives of the Obama administration are substantially identical to the statist big government policies followed by the dominant countries of the European Union. This administration’s policies concerning health care, abortion, same sex marriage, global warming and taxation are all in lock step with prevailing European Union policies.
Well, what is so wrong with coming back into the fold and returning to the values of Europe, the land where many of our ancestors hailed from? Well, to begin with today’s Europe is a world apart from the traditional Christian values based civilization of either our forefathers or the Europe which American soldiers died defending in World Wars I and II. Foundational American values like respect for life, traditional families and freedom of religion are on the wane in most of Europe.
Our Constitution’s Bill of Rights expressly protects the free exercise of religion. On the other hand, the Constitution of the European Union intentionally lacks any acknowledgment of the singularly important role that Christianity has had in shaping European civilization. While the ramifications of such a collective rejection of Europe’s Christian heritage is beyond the scope of this article, it suffices to say that our American Constitution and the European Union’s Constitution are oceans apart and America is much better off for it, thank you.
Therein lies the crux of the problem. President Obama and the leftist leadership of the Democratic party would like to build a statist bridge to take America down the path towards the European socialist welfare state.
However, to take America on this transformative journey, Democrat leaders will need to cajole more Americans into sacrificing their traditional values like faith, freedom and personal responsibility and, instead, get Americans to accept these new statist policies and leftist secular values. Faithful Catholics need to join together with increasing numbers of Americans who will oppose these efforts to transform America into a nation the Founders would scarcely recognize.
What Can Catholic Christians Do To Restore America’s Christian Values? With the Democrat leadership’s game plan now more obvious, the only questions unanswered are whether the Catholic faithful are prepared to fight for our country’s Christian heritage and, if so, how are we to wage that battle?
There are critically important actions we the Catholic faithful need to begin taking immediately to restore and preserve America’s Christian heritage for future generations. The strategies we need to pursue run the gamut and include ecclesial, cultural, economic, educational, legal and, most assuredly, political action. More will be said in the next issue in this series of articles; The Fight to Preserve America’s Christian Heritage.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Congressman Massa Tries To Torpedo Obama Healthcare Bill
by Mark Henry
Congressman Eric Massa resigned from office Monday night claiming that Democrat leaders pressured him to resign because he intended to vote “no” on the Senate’s controversial health bill. Massa’s resignation occurred after an ethics investigation into allegations of sexual harassment of staffers was made public.
Massa alleges that he was set-up by Democrat leaders who are desperate to reduce the number of yes votes needed to pass the health bill. Massa, a former Naval Commander, admits to using inappropriate "salty" language but that the remaining ethics charges are trumped up.
Last Sunday, on a Hornell, N.Y. radio program Massa spent 90 minutes attacking Democrat leaders including Majority Whip Steny Hoyer and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. In his comments, Massa lambasted Emanuel, calling him “the son of the devil's spawn" and said he would "strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive" to get a vote passed through Congress.
Democrat leaders are doing the best to maintain a stiff upper lip and deny Massa’s allegations that they will do “whatever it takes” to pass the unpopular health bill, including destroying the career of one of their own party members. However, Massa’s story has marathon legs and is getting extensive coverage on the radio, television and online media. The story is not only garnering coverage from the predictable conservative programs but is also getting critical attention from leading left of center venues like the Huffington Post.
The details of former Congressmen Massa’s complaints of harsh tactics by Democrat leaders are interesting but not that important. The real story here is the emergence of a clear modus operandi of unseemly deal-making and Chicago thug like intimidation by Democrat leaders intent on doing whatever it takes to get this health insurance bill passed.
Massa is part of a group of centrist and blue dog Democrats who have come under fierce pressure to pass the health bills in the Senate and House. Democrat Bart Stupak has been critical of the Senate bills lack of prohibitions against federal funding of abortions. Others have criticized the Senate bill as an expensive first step towards an eventual takeover of the health insurance industry. Republicans have strongly criticized the Senate bill’s mandate that essentially all Americans purchase health insurance.
These problematic aspects of the health bills, along with the hardball tactics employed by Democratic leaders to win approval of fellow Democrats have resulted in this version of health reform being very unpopular with the majority of Americans.
Given the unpopularity of the health bills, many are wondering why the Democrat leadership is so doggedly determined to pass the bills.
Conservative Commentator Mark Steyn has opined that “Government health care is not about health care, it’s about government.” Steyn asserts that once socialized medicine is put into place it will be next to impossible to get rid of this new entitlement program. This will result in a fundamental change in America with the country having a new and likely permanent left of center entitlement based foundation.
The Senate bill’s encroachment by the federal government into health care insurance is contrary to the fundamental principle of Catholic social doctrine of subsidiarity. This important Church doctrine states that decisions are best made at a smaller, more local level, rather than issuing forth from a more distant centralized source. Subsidiarity is wholly consistent with principles of limited government and personal freedom. On the other hand, it stands squarely in opposition to the statist welfare state’s core tenets of top down, centralized bureaucratic planning.
With the extreme measures used by Democratic leaders to cajole cooperation by their rank and file, it should come as no surprise when a recalcitrant party member pivots, turns on their ex-leader and shouts out a critique or two as he is shoved out the door. Massa said that if he was forced to resign he would not go quietly.
Massa’s tour de force series of prime time interviews during which he rains down criticism on his party’s leadership may be the torpedo that hits the health insurance cruiser just below the waterline. The only question is whether the next command from Democrat leaders presently steering the ship of state will be "abandon ship" or "all hands on deck". Recent polls suggest that most Americans hope it is the former rather than the later.
Mark Henry is a Catholic writer, speaker and author of “Finish Faithful”, a how to guide on Catholic estate planning. He can be reached at mthenrysaz@gmail.com or http://markhenry-quovadis.blogspot.com/
Congressman Eric Massa resigned from office Monday night claiming that Democrat leaders pressured him to resign because he intended to vote “no” on the Senate’s controversial health bill. Massa’s resignation occurred after an ethics investigation into allegations of sexual harassment of staffers was made public.
Massa alleges that he was set-up by Democrat leaders who are desperate to reduce the number of yes votes needed to pass the health bill. Massa, a former Naval Commander, admits to using inappropriate "salty" language but that the remaining ethics charges are trumped up.
Last Sunday, on a Hornell, N.Y. radio program Massa spent 90 minutes attacking Democrat leaders including Majority Whip Steny Hoyer and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. In his comments, Massa lambasted Emanuel, calling him “the son of the devil's spawn" and said he would "strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive" to get a vote passed through Congress.
Democrat leaders are doing the best to maintain a stiff upper lip and deny Massa’s allegations that they will do “whatever it takes” to pass the unpopular health bill, including destroying the career of one of their own party members. However, Massa’s story has marathon legs and is getting extensive coverage on the radio, television and online media. The story is not only garnering coverage from the predictable conservative programs but is also getting critical attention from leading left of center venues like the Huffington Post.
The details of former Congressmen Massa’s complaints of harsh tactics by Democrat leaders are interesting but not that important. The real story here is the emergence of a clear modus operandi of unseemly deal-making and Chicago thug like intimidation by Democrat leaders intent on doing whatever it takes to get this health insurance bill passed.
Massa is part of a group of centrist and blue dog Democrats who have come under fierce pressure to pass the health bills in the Senate and House. Democrat Bart Stupak has been critical of the Senate bills lack of prohibitions against federal funding of abortions. Others have criticized the Senate bill as an expensive first step towards an eventual takeover of the health insurance industry. Republicans have strongly criticized the Senate bill’s mandate that essentially all Americans purchase health insurance.
These problematic aspects of the health bills, along with the hardball tactics employed by Democratic leaders to win approval of fellow Democrats have resulted in this version of health reform being very unpopular with the majority of Americans.
Given the unpopularity of the health bills, many are wondering why the Democrat leadership is so doggedly determined to pass the bills.
Conservative Commentator Mark Steyn has opined that “Government health care is not about health care, it’s about government.” Steyn asserts that once socialized medicine is put into place it will be next to impossible to get rid of this new entitlement program. This will result in a fundamental change in America with the country having a new and likely permanent left of center entitlement based foundation.
The Senate bill’s encroachment by the federal government into health care insurance is contrary to the fundamental principle of Catholic social doctrine of subsidiarity. This important Church doctrine states that decisions are best made at a smaller, more local level, rather than issuing forth from a more distant centralized source. Subsidiarity is wholly consistent with principles of limited government and personal freedom. On the other hand, it stands squarely in opposition to the statist welfare state’s core tenets of top down, centralized bureaucratic planning.
With the extreme measures used by Democratic leaders to cajole cooperation by their rank and file, it should come as no surprise when a recalcitrant party member pivots, turns on their ex-leader and shouts out a critique or two as he is shoved out the door. Massa said that if he was forced to resign he would not go quietly.
Massa’s tour de force series of prime time interviews during which he rains down criticism on his party’s leadership may be the torpedo that hits the health insurance cruiser just below the waterline. The only question is whether the next command from Democrat leaders presently steering the ship of state will be "abandon ship" or "all hands on deck". Recent polls suggest that most Americans hope it is the former rather than the later.
Mark Henry is a Catholic writer, speaker and author of “Finish Faithful”, a how to guide on Catholic estate planning. He can be reached at mthenrysaz@gmail.com or http://markhenry-quovadis.blogspot.com/
Monday, February 15, 2010
Cogito Ergo Sum (I Think, Therefore I Am); Comatose Patients Think and Communicate
by Mark Henry
The medical world was stunned last week by a study published in a prestigious medical journal revealing that a number of patients diagnosed as being in a vegetative state could actually think and communicate. Experts are calling the study a “game changer” that will prompt changes in how patients in coma-like states will be treated in the future.
The study was evaluated in the February 3, 2010 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine in an article aptly titled “Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am) by MRI”. Doctors scanned a man’s brain while asking him questions like “is your father’s name Thomas”. They were astonished when the results of the scan showed that the man was able to think “yes” or “no’ answers by consciously changing his brain activity.
The author of the article, Dr. Allan M. Roper, said that the findings will make it “difficult to tell families confidently that their unresponsive loved ones are not in there somewhere.”
This study is re-igniting a controversy in the Catholic pro-life community about the medical profession’s using diagnostic terms like “brain death”, “vegetative state” and “minimally conscious state” to justify denying life sustaining medical care to a patient. This controversy is not just about semantics as the use of such terms to describe a patient’s medical condition can be a life or death matter. This is because any one of these diagnosis’s can result in a patient’s death by dehydration, their organs being harvested or suffering another form of medically induced death.
Dr. Paul Byrne, organizer of the February 2009 Signs of Life Conference in Rome, has long been an opponent of the brain death standard. When interviewed for this article, Dr. Byrne pointed out that while official Catholic teachings prohibit the taking of a person’s vital organs before death there remains much support for the brain death criteria within the Vatican.
According to Dr. Byrne, for many decades now medical professionals have supported “brain death” as the standard for determining when a person has died and their organs can be removed. Among the many criticisms of the brain death standard is that a person can be pronounced dead even though their heart is beating, they are breathing, they can digest food and even carry a child to term.
To most of us, such a person would be considered alive. However, if such a person was in a coma then under prevailing medical practice this person could be pronounced “brain dead” and their organs could be removed. According to Dr. Byrne, an organ donor’s vital organs are usually removed without giving then anesthesia. To support his point that “brain dead” patients are not really dead, Dr. Byrne points out that doctors who remove organs from such patients often see the patient move, their heart beat jump and their blood pressure rise rapidly during the organ incision.
When medical workers see an unanaesthetized patient’s physical reaction to the removal of their organs it can traumatize them. For that reason, organ donors in the U.S. are often injected with a paralyzing drug to control the patient and reduce trauma to the medical staff. How's that for misdirected compassion?
In light of these and other revelations, the Vatican’s support for brain death may be changing. In September 2008, Professor Lucetta Scaraffia, Vice-President of the Italian Association for Science and Life and a member of the Italian National Committee on Bio-Ethics, wrote a front page article in the Vatican newspaper L’Observatore Romano that was highly critical of the brain death standard.
While such a writing is not by any stretch considered Magisterial teaching, it is an indicator that the Vatican may be reassessing its support of the brain death standard.
Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schindler Schiavo, also weighed in on this development. When I interviewed Schindler, he said the story adds to the growing evidence critical of the persistent vegetative state ("PVS") diagnosis. Schindler also voiced his objection to using the PVS standard when diagnosing and treating people with severe head injuries.
In the case of Schindler’s sister, Terri, Schindler said that the doctor’s diagnosis that she was in a persistent vegetative state paved the way for denying her food and water resulting in her tragic death by dehydration.
The New England Journal of Medicine’s article will hopefully trigger a groundswell of support to change how doctor’s diagnose and treat people with serious brain injuries. This study will certainly be welcome news for families who have compassionately cared for brain injured loved ones in the face of a medical establishment that far too often treats these patients and their families cavalierly, without empathy and without the medical attention they need and deserve.
During the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's annual meeting in 2009, the Bishops commendably adopted new guidelines requiring the provision of nutrition and hydration to patients in a persistent vegetative state. Let us hope and pray that this study discussed in the New England Journal of Medicine will be a light on the path to encourage the Church to continue further down this road and adopt new policies that protect helpless brain injured persons who desperately need the Church to be a vocal moral ally in their corner.
The Church could advance the Culture of Life by voicing disapproval of the medical establishment’s harsh approaches to dealing with people who are diagnosed as brain dead, in a persistent vegetative state or who are minimally conscious. A good starting point would be Magisterial teaching which categorically rejects the morally bankrupt “brain death” criteria and expunges the dehumanizing phrase “vegetative state" from Catholic health care lexicon.
The medical world was stunned last week by a study published in a prestigious medical journal revealing that a number of patients diagnosed as being in a vegetative state could actually think and communicate. Experts are calling the study a “game changer” that will prompt changes in how patients in coma-like states will be treated in the future.
The study was evaluated in the February 3, 2010 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine in an article aptly titled “Cogito Ergo Sum (I think, therefore I am) by MRI”. Doctors scanned a man’s brain while asking him questions like “is your father’s name Thomas”. They were astonished when the results of the scan showed that the man was able to think “yes” or “no’ answers by consciously changing his brain activity.
The author of the article, Dr. Allan M. Roper, said that the findings will make it “difficult to tell families confidently that their unresponsive loved ones are not in there somewhere.”
This study is re-igniting a controversy in the Catholic pro-life community about the medical profession’s using diagnostic terms like “brain death”, “vegetative state” and “minimally conscious state” to justify denying life sustaining medical care to a patient. This controversy is not just about semantics as the use of such terms to describe a patient’s medical condition can be a life or death matter. This is because any one of these diagnosis’s can result in a patient’s death by dehydration, their organs being harvested or suffering another form of medically induced death.
Dr. Paul Byrne, organizer of the February 2009 Signs of Life Conference in Rome, has long been an opponent of the brain death standard. When interviewed for this article, Dr. Byrne pointed out that while official Catholic teachings prohibit the taking of a person’s vital organs before death there remains much support for the brain death criteria within the Vatican.
According to Dr. Byrne, for many decades now medical professionals have supported “brain death” as the standard for determining when a person has died and their organs can be removed. Among the many criticisms of the brain death standard is that a person can be pronounced dead even though their heart is beating, they are breathing, they can digest food and even carry a child to term.
To most of us, such a person would be considered alive. However, if such a person was in a coma then under prevailing medical practice this person could be pronounced “brain dead” and their organs could be removed. According to Dr. Byrne, an organ donor’s vital organs are usually removed without giving then anesthesia. To support his point that “brain dead” patients are not really dead, Dr. Byrne points out that doctors who remove organs from such patients often see the patient move, their heart beat jump and their blood pressure rise rapidly during the organ incision.
When medical workers see an unanaesthetized patient’s physical reaction to the removal of their organs it can traumatize them. For that reason, organ donors in the U.S. are often injected with a paralyzing drug to control the patient and reduce trauma to the medical staff. How's that for misdirected compassion?
In light of these and other revelations, the Vatican’s support for brain death may be changing. In September 2008, Professor Lucetta Scaraffia, Vice-President of the Italian Association for Science and Life and a member of the Italian National Committee on Bio-Ethics, wrote a front page article in the Vatican newspaper L’Observatore Romano that was highly critical of the brain death standard.
While such a writing is not by any stretch considered Magisterial teaching, it is an indicator that the Vatican may be reassessing its support of the brain death standard.
Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schindler Schiavo, also weighed in on this development. When I interviewed Schindler, he said the story adds to the growing evidence critical of the persistent vegetative state ("PVS") diagnosis. Schindler also voiced his objection to using the PVS standard when diagnosing and treating people with severe head injuries.
In the case of Schindler’s sister, Terri, Schindler said that the doctor’s diagnosis that she was in a persistent vegetative state paved the way for denying her food and water resulting in her tragic death by dehydration.
The New England Journal of Medicine’s article will hopefully trigger a groundswell of support to change how doctor’s diagnose and treat people with serious brain injuries. This study will certainly be welcome news for families who have compassionately cared for brain injured loved ones in the face of a medical establishment that far too often treats these patients and their families cavalierly, without empathy and without the medical attention they need and deserve.
During the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's annual meeting in 2009, the Bishops commendably adopted new guidelines requiring the provision of nutrition and hydration to patients in a persistent vegetative state. Let us hope and pray that this study discussed in the New England Journal of Medicine will be a light on the path to encourage the Church to continue further down this road and adopt new policies that protect helpless brain injured persons who desperately need the Church to be a vocal moral ally in their corner.
The Church could advance the Culture of Life by voicing disapproval of the medical establishment’s harsh approaches to dealing with people who are diagnosed as brain dead, in a persistent vegetative state or who are minimally conscious. A good starting point would be Magisterial teaching which categorically rejects the morally bankrupt “brain death” criteria and expunges the dehumanizing phrase “vegetative state" from Catholic health care lexicon.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Obama’s Budget and The Death of American Exceptionalism, R.I.P.
by Mark Henry
President Obama proposed 2011 Budget was released on Monday. The underlying nature of the federal budget always results in winners and losers, fiscally speaking, so it is not surprising that President Obama’s budget is generating criticism. However, if you look beyond the raw numbers and analyze the priorities reflected in the budget it opens your eyes to President Obama’s vision for America. Clearly, his is an extreme leftist vision that is disconnected from and contrary to the wishes of an increasing number of Americans of all political persuasions, especially people of faith.
One of America’s greatest accomplishments of the last century was the manned space program including the Apollo program which culminated in the moon landing. This historic period of American exploration was chronicled in a number of notable movies like “The Right Stuff”. The scientific advances and technological developments spawned from the space program are extensive and too numerous to itemize here. However, Obama’s new budget would effectively cancel the manned space program.
Obama’s plans to cancel America’s space program speaks volumes about his vision of America. The President has been described by some as the apologist-in-chief who feels compelled to publicly chastise America when he interacts with the international community. He seemingly views America’s manned space program as an irritating example of American achievement. Excellence and achievement just don’t fit in with the principle of mandated equal results which is the cornerstone of socialism. America’s space program, one of the crown jewels of American accomplishment, is just the wrong stuff in President Obama’s eyes. Obama’s proposed budget seeks to push America away from acheivement and take our nation down the path of mediocrity.
Obama’s budget also plans on reducing the tax incentives for charitable giving. When you look at what makes our country great, the exceptional charity of Americans comes to mind. Americans give much more to charity than any other nation in the world. The tremendous outpouring of financial support in Haiti is part of a long history of Americans individually stepping forward to help suffering people throughout the world. Much of this outpouring of financial assistance comes from faith-based organizations rather than the government.
The charitable behavior of Americans contrasts starkly with Europeans who are coddled by socialist governments that provide for every need. In a recent speech, Conservative author Dennis Prager said “The European knows: The government, the state, will take care of me, my children, my parents, my neighbors and my community. I don't have to do anything. The bigger question in many Europeans' lives is, "How much vacation time will I have and where will I spend that vacation?".
Obama’s plans to revise tax policies to discourage charitable giving are a hatchet attack on the positive role charitable organizations, including myriads of Catholic charities, play in American society. It’s all part of an Obama vision to transform America into a more European like socialistic country. What this would mean for America is to make an already big government even bigger and to change the independent American character into someone else, a person who does not value faith, service to others, self-reliance or freedom.
President Obama’s budget also calls for a plan to end subsidies which underwrite private bank involvement in student loans. The savings generated by ending these federal subsidies would be used to increase Pell grants which are the main federal program to help poor students attend college.
The short-term impact of these changes would be to squeeze out private lenders from the business of making student loans. The federal government would become the sole single provider of government-backed student loans. Chalk up one more industry taken over by the voracious federal government.
In this regard, President Obama is pushing a single payer/provider strategy which is similar to the single payer idea which he tried to ram through with the recent attempted federal takeover of health care insurance. Evidently, President Obama feels he has a better chance of getting his way with college students than he did with the more politically seasoned seniors who opposed him in the failed health care takeover debacle.
There is a more troubling aspect of the proposed student loan changes which further illuminates the socialistic agenda underlying aspects of Obama’s budget. What Obama is proposing is that if you choose to go into "public service," any college loan debts will be forgiven ten years after you leave college. This is a “making big government even bigger” plan which seeks to draft America’s youth into the already bloated ranks of government bureaucracy.
In the last six decades, the number of Americans employed by the government has grown five times faster than the population. However, President Obama believes this is not enough; his plan would dramatically increase the numbers of government employees. This will be accomplished by the dual strategy of student loan forgiveness bribes to the youth to herd them into the government bureaucracy and by over taxing and over regulating businesses to the point that working in the private sector is a financially unattractive career path. It’s all part of the socialist playbook to make the individual smaller and big government even bigger.
Of even greater concern to Catholics are the Obama budget provisions that would increase federal funding for abortion. The Title X family planning program’s funding of Planned Parenthood would increase to $327,356,000. The budget also proposes the elimination of abortion funding limits affecting the Legal Services Corporation as well as the continuation of abortion funding for the United Nations Population Fund which promotes abortion across the world.
Underlying these and other provisions contained in the Obama budget are policies which seek to expand the size and reach of the federal government and to weaken the faith, resolve and resources of those who stand in the way. The desired end result of these policies is to transform America into a socialistic welfare state that would be both unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers and far removed from the Judeo-Christian principles which our country was founded upon. It does not seem to matter that these policies have consistently failed when implemented either in Europe or elsewhere.
How then should the Catholic community respond to the many objectionable provisions contained in the Obama budget? Once again, we are blessed by the enduring insights of Pope John Paul II. In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II harshly criticized the corruption of the modern democratic state in which citizens with religious beliefs are viewed with great suspicion. The Pope went on to condemn the welfare state stating that it undermined the core principle of subsidiarity. The welfare state discourages human initiative and results in an excessive increase of public bureaucracies. This results in an enormous increase in spending by a government whose goal is to achieve its own statist agenda rather than to serve the public.
Pope John Paul II’s observations on the welfare state shed a bright light on the fundamentally flawed ideologies that underlie these provisions of the Obama budget.
Further, Catholics who seek to follow the tenets of Catholic teachings on abortion will be strongly opposed to the Obama budget’s plan to expand federal funding of abortion. Pope John Paul II’s landmark encyclical Gospel of Life taught us that all human life has value. In Worthiness To Receive Communion, General Principles, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) stated that while Catholics could disagree on many issues, abortion is a grave sin and Catholics are obligated to adhere to the Church’s teachings on these issues.
These Catholic teachings on the welfare state and abortion are directly on point to America as our country stands at an epic politicalcrossroads. As such, Catholics would do well to heed these teachings as we decide how to respond to the political and economic challenges posed by President Obama’s budget.
President Obama proposed 2011 Budget was released on Monday. The underlying nature of the federal budget always results in winners and losers, fiscally speaking, so it is not surprising that President Obama’s budget is generating criticism. However, if you look beyond the raw numbers and analyze the priorities reflected in the budget it opens your eyes to President Obama’s vision for America. Clearly, his is an extreme leftist vision that is disconnected from and contrary to the wishes of an increasing number of Americans of all political persuasions, especially people of faith.
One of America’s greatest accomplishments of the last century was the manned space program including the Apollo program which culminated in the moon landing. This historic period of American exploration was chronicled in a number of notable movies like “The Right Stuff”. The scientific advances and technological developments spawned from the space program are extensive and too numerous to itemize here. However, Obama’s new budget would effectively cancel the manned space program.
Obama’s plans to cancel America’s space program speaks volumes about his vision of America. The President has been described by some as the apologist-in-chief who feels compelled to publicly chastise America when he interacts with the international community. He seemingly views America’s manned space program as an irritating example of American achievement. Excellence and achievement just don’t fit in with the principle of mandated equal results which is the cornerstone of socialism. America’s space program, one of the crown jewels of American accomplishment, is just the wrong stuff in President Obama’s eyes. Obama’s proposed budget seeks to push America away from acheivement and take our nation down the path of mediocrity.
Obama’s budget also plans on reducing the tax incentives for charitable giving. When you look at what makes our country great, the exceptional charity of Americans comes to mind. Americans give much more to charity than any other nation in the world. The tremendous outpouring of financial support in Haiti is part of a long history of Americans individually stepping forward to help suffering people throughout the world. Much of this outpouring of financial assistance comes from faith-based organizations rather than the government.
The charitable behavior of Americans contrasts starkly with Europeans who are coddled by socialist governments that provide for every need. In a recent speech, Conservative author Dennis Prager said “The European knows: The government, the state, will take care of me, my children, my parents, my neighbors and my community. I don't have to do anything. The bigger question in many Europeans' lives is, "How much vacation time will I have and where will I spend that vacation?".
Obama’s plans to revise tax policies to discourage charitable giving are a hatchet attack on the positive role charitable organizations, including myriads of Catholic charities, play in American society. It’s all part of an Obama vision to transform America into a more European like socialistic country. What this would mean for America is to make an already big government even bigger and to change the independent American character into someone else, a person who does not value faith, service to others, self-reliance or freedom.
President Obama’s budget also calls for a plan to end subsidies which underwrite private bank involvement in student loans. The savings generated by ending these federal subsidies would be used to increase Pell grants which are the main federal program to help poor students attend college.
The short-term impact of these changes would be to squeeze out private lenders from the business of making student loans. The federal government would become the sole single provider of government-backed student loans. Chalk up one more industry taken over by the voracious federal government.
In this regard, President Obama is pushing a single payer/provider strategy which is similar to the single payer idea which he tried to ram through with the recent attempted federal takeover of health care insurance. Evidently, President Obama feels he has a better chance of getting his way with college students than he did with the more politically seasoned seniors who opposed him in the failed health care takeover debacle.
There is a more troubling aspect of the proposed student loan changes which further illuminates the socialistic agenda underlying aspects of Obama’s budget. What Obama is proposing is that if you choose to go into "public service," any college loan debts will be forgiven ten years after you leave college. This is a “making big government even bigger” plan which seeks to draft America’s youth into the already bloated ranks of government bureaucracy.
In the last six decades, the number of Americans employed by the government has grown five times faster than the population. However, President Obama believes this is not enough; his plan would dramatically increase the numbers of government employees. This will be accomplished by the dual strategy of student loan forgiveness bribes to the youth to herd them into the government bureaucracy and by over taxing and over regulating businesses to the point that working in the private sector is a financially unattractive career path. It’s all part of the socialist playbook to make the individual smaller and big government even bigger.
Of even greater concern to Catholics are the Obama budget provisions that would increase federal funding for abortion. The Title X family planning program’s funding of Planned Parenthood would increase to $327,356,000. The budget also proposes the elimination of abortion funding limits affecting the Legal Services Corporation as well as the continuation of abortion funding for the United Nations Population Fund which promotes abortion across the world.
Underlying these and other provisions contained in the Obama budget are policies which seek to expand the size and reach of the federal government and to weaken the faith, resolve and resources of those who stand in the way. The desired end result of these policies is to transform America into a socialistic welfare state that would be both unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers and far removed from the Judeo-Christian principles which our country was founded upon. It does not seem to matter that these policies have consistently failed when implemented either in Europe or elsewhere.
How then should the Catholic community respond to the many objectionable provisions contained in the Obama budget? Once again, we are blessed by the enduring insights of Pope John Paul II. In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II harshly criticized the corruption of the modern democratic state in which citizens with religious beliefs are viewed with great suspicion. The Pope went on to condemn the welfare state stating that it undermined the core principle of subsidiarity. The welfare state discourages human initiative and results in an excessive increase of public bureaucracies. This results in an enormous increase in spending by a government whose goal is to achieve its own statist agenda rather than to serve the public.
Pope John Paul II’s observations on the welfare state shed a bright light on the fundamentally flawed ideologies that underlie these provisions of the Obama budget.
Further, Catholics who seek to follow the tenets of Catholic teachings on abortion will be strongly opposed to the Obama budget’s plan to expand federal funding of abortion. Pope John Paul II’s landmark encyclical Gospel of Life taught us that all human life has value. In Worthiness To Receive Communion, General Principles, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) stated that while Catholics could disagree on many issues, abortion is a grave sin and Catholics are obligated to adhere to the Church’s teachings on these issues.
These Catholic teachings on the welfare state and abortion are directly on point to America as our country stands at an epic politicalcrossroads. As such, Catholics would do well to heed these teachings as we decide how to respond to the political and economic challenges posed by President Obama’s budget.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
President Obama’s “Statist” Of Our Union Speech
by Mark Henry
Americans who watched the President’s State of the Union speech hoping for a new kind of “change” will most assuredly be disappointed with what they saw and heard. While Obama did acknowledge coming up short on a number of first year goals, mainly the failure to pass health reform, most of the speech charted a course that continues with the administration’s increasingly unpopular leftist vision for the future.
President Obama’s decision to avoid substantive policy changes manifests an unwillingness to come to grips with the message delivered by blue state Massachusetts voters who elected Republican Scott Brown to the U.S Senate. President Obama’s speech revealed a man who has been slightly humbled but completely undeterred from proceeding with an agenda that has become increasingly unpopular with most Americans. His decision to proceed with health reform efforts reveals an imperial like disregard for the wishes of the electorate that is difficult to fathom. Ditto for his comments that we need to proceed with cap and trade.
On a somewhat more positive side, President Obama did propose a jobs bill that purportedly would encourage investment in small business, manufacturing and the creation of green jobs. This does show that this administration is mindful that most Americans would prefer that the federal government focus on improving the dreadful unemployment problem, as opposed to reforming health care.
However, with the 2009 Economic Recovery Act resulting in worse unemployment numbers many in the private sector doubt that the Obama administrations statist centralized planning approach towards stimulating the economy and creating jobs will improve their lot.
President Obama’s new initiative to increase federal support of college programs sounds good but a look behind the curtain of this program is troubling. What Obama proposed was that students going into public service, including the government sector, would be entitled to have their student loans forgiven. The obvious purpose of this would be to drive college graduates into government work and discourage private sector employment. In essence, they would offer a “Nebraska Cornhusker Kickback” to all college students receiving federal aid. It’s all about making big government even bigger. The fingerprints of the big government central planner are all over this one.
This special deal for students who agree to work for the government is a bitter pill for most Americans in the private sector who have suffered in the economic downturn while public employees are riding high, unaffected by the recession. According to a recent USA Today study, 7.3 million people in the private sector have lost their jobs during this recession. On the other hand, between December 2007 and June 2009, federal payrolls grew by nearly 10 percent. To top it off, Office of Personnel Management data reveals that your average federal employee is making about $71,000 per year. This is a whopping 76 percent higher than the average salary earned in the private sector.
When you look at the President’s job creation and college funding programs, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that President Obama is aloof and very disconnected from the economic hardship that the majority of Americans who are not working in the public sector are experiencing.
President Obama is getting a few kudos for proposing a freeze of government spending. On the surface, it sounds fine; however, the proposed freeze may effectively lock in the huge spending increases made by the federal government in 2009. For example, the EPA’s budget increased by approximately 35% in 2009. Freezing such ridiculously high levels of spending hardly qualifies as government belt-tightening.
Additionally, the proposed freeze will limit only discretionary spending which amounts to less than 1% of the federal budget. Will the proposed freeze limit salaries of federal employees? Have to look into that one but I would not bet the farm on it.
Obama’s statist agenda for America stands in stark contrast with the competing vision articulated by Virginia governor Bob McDonnell who ably gave the GOP’s response to the State of the Union Speech. McDonnell quoted Thomas Jefferson as he appealed for a return to principles of limited government.
“It was Thomas Jefferson,” McDonnell said, “who called for ‘A wise and frugal government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry .... and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.’ He was right. Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much.”
Governor McDonnell took the Democrats to task for their failed effort to strengthen the economy via massive federal spending. He reminded us that the Democrats promised us that last years’ Economic Recovery Act would create more jobs immediately and keep unemployment below 8%. McDonnell pointed out that the economic stimulus has failed as more than 3 million Americans have lost their jobs.
Governor McDonnell then called for a new era of limited government and hearkened back to America’s Founders stating that “As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best.”
Many Catholics will find much to like about Governor McDonnell’s vision of a more limited government. This governing philosophy coincides closely with the core Catholic principle of subsidiarity. This Catholic teaching states that when something can be done locally by a smaller simpler organization this is better than central planning type action by a larger and more complex organization. This tenet safeguards the ideals of limited government and personal freedom and stands squarely opposed to the welfare state’s goals of centralization and bureaucracy.
Pope John Paul II harshly criticized the welfare state in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus wherein he stated that the welfare state undermined this core principle of subsidiarity. According to the Pope, the welfare state discourages human initiative and results in an excessive increase of public bureaucracies. This results in an enormous increase in spending by a government whose goal is to achieve its own statist agenda rather than to serve the public.
Catholics would do well to heed Pope John Paul II’s insights on the serious problems of the welfare state. This time tested Catholic teaching helps explain why President Obama is bound and determined to pursue highly unpopular policies like health care reform and cap and trade. I guess tin ears are what it takes to herd the masses into the statist corral.
Americans who watched the President’s State of the Union speech hoping for a new kind of “change” will most assuredly be disappointed with what they saw and heard. While Obama did acknowledge coming up short on a number of first year goals, mainly the failure to pass health reform, most of the speech charted a course that continues with the administration’s increasingly unpopular leftist vision for the future.
President Obama’s decision to avoid substantive policy changes manifests an unwillingness to come to grips with the message delivered by blue state Massachusetts voters who elected Republican Scott Brown to the U.S Senate. President Obama’s speech revealed a man who has been slightly humbled but completely undeterred from proceeding with an agenda that has become increasingly unpopular with most Americans. His decision to proceed with health reform efforts reveals an imperial like disregard for the wishes of the electorate that is difficult to fathom. Ditto for his comments that we need to proceed with cap and trade.
On a somewhat more positive side, President Obama did propose a jobs bill that purportedly would encourage investment in small business, manufacturing and the creation of green jobs. This does show that this administration is mindful that most Americans would prefer that the federal government focus on improving the dreadful unemployment problem, as opposed to reforming health care.
However, with the 2009 Economic Recovery Act resulting in worse unemployment numbers many in the private sector doubt that the Obama administrations statist centralized planning approach towards stimulating the economy and creating jobs will improve their lot.
President Obama’s new initiative to increase federal support of college programs sounds good but a look behind the curtain of this program is troubling. What Obama proposed was that students going into public service, including the government sector, would be entitled to have their student loans forgiven. The obvious purpose of this would be to drive college graduates into government work and discourage private sector employment. In essence, they would offer a “Nebraska Cornhusker Kickback” to all college students receiving federal aid. It’s all about making big government even bigger. The fingerprints of the big government central planner are all over this one.
This special deal for students who agree to work for the government is a bitter pill for most Americans in the private sector who have suffered in the economic downturn while public employees are riding high, unaffected by the recession. According to a recent USA Today study, 7.3 million people in the private sector have lost their jobs during this recession. On the other hand, between December 2007 and June 2009, federal payrolls grew by nearly 10 percent. To top it off, Office of Personnel Management data reveals that your average federal employee is making about $71,000 per year. This is a whopping 76 percent higher than the average salary earned in the private sector.
When you look at the President’s job creation and college funding programs, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that President Obama is aloof and very disconnected from the economic hardship that the majority of Americans who are not working in the public sector are experiencing.
President Obama is getting a few kudos for proposing a freeze of government spending. On the surface, it sounds fine; however, the proposed freeze may effectively lock in the huge spending increases made by the federal government in 2009. For example, the EPA’s budget increased by approximately 35% in 2009. Freezing such ridiculously high levels of spending hardly qualifies as government belt-tightening.
Additionally, the proposed freeze will limit only discretionary spending which amounts to less than 1% of the federal budget. Will the proposed freeze limit salaries of federal employees? Have to look into that one but I would not bet the farm on it.
Obama’s statist agenda for America stands in stark contrast with the competing vision articulated by Virginia governor Bob McDonnell who ably gave the GOP’s response to the State of the Union Speech. McDonnell quoted Thomas Jefferson as he appealed for a return to principles of limited government.
“It was Thomas Jefferson,” McDonnell said, “who called for ‘A wise and frugal government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry .... and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.’ He was right. Today, the federal government is simply trying to do too much.”
Governor McDonnell took the Democrats to task for their failed effort to strengthen the economy via massive federal spending. He reminded us that the Democrats promised us that last years’ Economic Recovery Act would create more jobs immediately and keep unemployment below 8%. McDonnell pointed out that the economic stimulus has failed as more than 3 million Americans have lost their jobs.
Governor McDonnell then called for a new era of limited government and hearkened back to America’s Founders stating that “As our Founders clearly stated, and we Governors understand, government closest to the people governs best.”
Many Catholics will find much to like about Governor McDonnell’s vision of a more limited government. This governing philosophy coincides closely with the core Catholic principle of subsidiarity. This Catholic teaching states that when something can be done locally by a smaller simpler organization this is better than central planning type action by a larger and more complex organization. This tenet safeguards the ideals of limited government and personal freedom and stands squarely opposed to the welfare state’s goals of centralization and bureaucracy.
Pope John Paul II harshly criticized the welfare state in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus wherein he stated that the welfare state undermined this core principle of subsidiarity. According to the Pope, the welfare state discourages human initiative and results in an excessive increase of public bureaucracies. This results in an enormous increase in spending by a government whose goal is to achieve its own statist agenda rather than to serve the public.
Catholics would do well to heed Pope John Paul II’s insights on the serious problems of the welfare state. This time tested Catholic teaching helps explain why President Obama is bound and determined to pursue highly unpopular policies like health care reform and cap and trade. I guess tin ears are what it takes to herd the masses into the statist corral.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Coakley Loss Aftermath: Obama Recruiting Kamikazes
January 20, 2010 Washington Post Classified Ad: Wanted: Sitting U.S. Senator or U.S. Congressmen willing to join political suicide mission to salvage takeover of health care. Ideal applicant will be fearless kamikaze type willing to sacrifice political career to advance socialist agenda, however, obedient lemmings also encouraged to apply. Applicant must be willing to disregard the approaching sound of voter’s footsteps or the sight of angry citizens with pitchforks.
After Tuesday’s political Tsunami in Massachusetts, the pool of Democrats willing to fall on the Obama care sword is shrinking dramatically. Democrats in the House and Senate find themselves uncomfortably trapped between a rock and a hard place. Martha Coakley, the political canary in the mine, has expired from the toxic vapors of voter anger directed towards failed big government policies. Democrats running for reelection in the November 2010 elections will be facing an electorate that is decidedly more conservative than the voters in blue state Massachusetts who did the unthinkable; elected a Republican to succeed Ted Kennedy.
With anxiety for their political futures ramping up to all-time career highs, House and Senate Democrats in short order will have to contend with their “too liberal for America” leadership who soon come knocking on their doors for a special mission. The anxious Democratic rank and file will learn that their draft numbers has come up, they have been enlisted into Obama’s army and their first and possibly last assignment will be to ride point on the career ending death march called health reform. Regretably, heading north to Canada like some of them did to escape the draft in the 1970’s is not an option.
The majority of these Democrats will soon rue the day Obama rode into the Beltway on his high horse proclaiming the nebulous mantra of change. The only question is how many Democrats over the next few days and weeks will be heard to mutter under their breaths “not the kind of change I expected”.
Can it be that Obama will have the audacity to push forward with the ever so unpopular health reform initiative, after the Massachusetts upset of Ted Kennedy heir apparent Martha Coakley? Well, Obama’s tin eared response to the electorate’s discontent is coming from the same man who titled his early biography “The Audacity of Hope” so no real surprise there.
What are the pundits saying? Fox News contributor Juan Williams opined that Obama will not be deterred in the least by Martha Coakley’s shocking loss. Instead, Obama will “double up” efforts to get health care reform passed by whatever means, regardless of the political cost.
However, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh ventured that a more centrist strategy is called for, stating that the Democratic party needs to heed the results of the Massachusetts election. Senator Bayh urged his fellow Democrats to move ideologically towards the center and distant itself from the extreme left which has dominated the Democratic leadership recently.
However, Obama and the Senate and House Democratic leadership have so far exhibited a nearly suicidal determination to push forward with their wrongheaded health industry takeover. Democrat leaders have invested so much of their rapidly diminishing political capital that failure is not an option they are willing to consider. As such, they appear to be suffering from the never before diagnosed sickness called health industry takeover syndrome (HITS)
As such, Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are not likely to heed Senator Bayh’s “President Clinton-like” move to the center and start working on less divisive issues. However, if they doggedly pursue health care reform they will likely find it exceedingly difficult to marshal support from their rank and file. If there is a significant defection of Democrats from the shaky health reform coalition, Obama’s last ditch effort to recruit political kamikazes will begin in earnest.
We will soon find out whether Obama will succeed in finding a few feckless Democrat loyalists to shore up the health care initiative’s weakened flank. If Obama and the liberal Democrat leaders obstinately continue pushing health care reform over the objections of the electorate, perhaps the politically shrewdest strategy for the Republicans would be to voice objections but not interfere too much with the Democrats self-destructive behavior.
Napoleon Bonaparte once said “Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.” This might be good advice for Republicans to follow, assuming our country survives intact the onslaught of the extreme leftist ideologues who, for the time being, are still in charge.
By Mark Henry
After Tuesday’s political Tsunami in Massachusetts, the pool of Democrats willing to fall on the Obama care sword is shrinking dramatically. Democrats in the House and Senate find themselves uncomfortably trapped between a rock and a hard place. Martha Coakley, the political canary in the mine, has expired from the toxic vapors of voter anger directed towards failed big government policies. Democrats running for reelection in the November 2010 elections will be facing an electorate that is decidedly more conservative than the voters in blue state Massachusetts who did the unthinkable; elected a Republican to succeed Ted Kennedy.
With anxiety for their political futures ramping up to all-time career highs, House and Senate Democrats in short order will have to contend with their “too liberal for America” leadership who soon come knocking on their doors for a special mission. The anxious Democratic rank and file will learn that their draft numbers has come up, they have been enlisted into Obama’s army and their first and possibly last assignment will be to ride point on the career ending death march called health reform. Regretably, heading north to Canada like some of them did to escape the draft in the 1970’s is not an option.
The majority of these Democrats will soon rue the day Obama rode into the Beltway on his high horse proclaiming the nebulous mantra of change. The only question is how many Democrats over the next few days and weeks will be heard to mutter under their breaths “not the kind of change I expected”.
Can it be that Obama will have the audacity to push forward with the ever so unpopular health reform initiative, after the Massachusetts upset of Ted Kennedy heir apparent Martha Coakley? Well, Obama’s tin eared response to the electorate’s discontent is coming from the same man who titled his early biography “The Audacity of Hope” so no real surprise there.
What are the pundits saying? Fox News contributor Juan Williams opined that Obama will not be deterred in the least by Martha Coakley’s shocking loss. Instead, Obama will “double up” efforts to get health care reform passed by whatever means, regardless of the political cost.
However, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh ventured that a more centrist strategy is called for, stating that the Democratic party needs to heed the results of the Massachusetts election. Senator Bayh urged his fellow Democrats to move ideologically towards the center and distant itself from the extreme left which has dominated the Democratic leadership recently.
However, Obama and the Senate and House Democratic leadership have so far exhibited a nearly suicidal determination to push forward with their wrongheaded health industry takeover. Democrat leaders have invested so much of their rapidly diminishing political capital that failure is not an option they are willing to consider. As such, they appear to be suffering from the never before diagnosed sickness called health industry takeover syndrome (HITS)
As such, Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are not likely to heed Senator Bayh’s “President Clinton-like” move to the center and start working on less divisive issues. However, if they doggedly pursue health care reform they will likely find it exceedingly difficult to marshal support from their rank and file. If there is a significant defection of Democrats from the shaky health reform coalition, Obama’s last ditch effort to recruit political kamikazes will begin in earnest.
We will soon find out whether Obama will succeed in finding a few feckless Democrat loyalists to shore up the health care initiative’s weakened flank. If Obama and the liberal Democrat leaders obstinately continue pushing health care reform over the objections of the electorate, perhaps the politically shrewdest strategy for the Republicans would be to voice objections but not interfere too much with the Democrats self-destructive behavior.
Napoleon Bonaparte once said “Never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake.” This might be good advice for Republicans to follow, assuming our country survives intact the onslaught of the extreme leftist ideologues who, for the time being, are still in charge.
By Mark Henry
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Catholics Need Not Apply Says Martha Coakley
Catholics who are sitting on the fence in the MA Senatorial race were just handed a big reason to vote for Scott Brown. In Ken Pittman’s Thursday radio program on WBSM-AM in Massachusetts he interviewed Martha Coakley who is a staunch advocate of the current federal health reform legislation. Pittman questioned Coakley on rights of conscience and whether a Catholic doctor who agreed with the Pope’s teachings on contraception should be required to go against those teachings and prescribe emergency contraception. Coakley resorted to the secular liberal playbook employing the canard of separation of Church and State and incredulously asserting that devout Catholics should not work in an emergency room.
To borrow a racial epithet from the 60’s, Coakley said essentially that Catholics should not only move to the back of the bus they should be kicked off the bus. What possessed Coakley to make this slap in the face of the 39% of citizens of Massachusetts who are Catholics will be probed in detail in next weeks post mortem of this election.
Coakley’s responses in this radio interview gives Catholic voters a candid glimpse at her judicial, social and political worldview. What you see in Coakley’s minds eye is a shocking degree of hostility towards the First Amendment freedom of religion rights of Catholics. Additionally, her strong support for the very unpopular Democratic health reform initiative, with it’s federal abortion funding, has alienated many voters, Catholic and non-Catholic as well.
As the current Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley should know better that to use the oft misused separation of Church and State metaphor to justify denying religious freedom rights of Catholics. Coakley knows full well that the separation of Church and State principle is not found anywhere in the First Amendment or any other part of the U.S. Constitution. To the contrary, the First Amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from trampling on the rights of all religious, including Catholics.
Coakley’s assertion that that Catholic physicians lose their First Amendment protected religious rights once they start working turns the Constitution on its ear and is a dangerous position for any government official to espouse, let alone a State’s Attorney General. As stated earlier, the First Amendment generally protects religious freedom from government persecution and certainly does not justify prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom as Coakley asserted in her interview.
Coakley’s hostility to Catholic rights of conscience is precisely the type of government intrusion upon religion that the First Amendment is intended to protect us from. As such, one could reasonably say that the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect the citizenry from the likes of Martha Coakley since she favors using naked federal power to stamp out the exercise of religious freedom in the health care arena.
Coakley’s comment also shows she is a liberal statist who neither understands nor respects the Constitution and its First Amendment protections of religious freedom. Similarly, Coakley’s views evidence a profound disrespect for Catholic teachings and Catholics who follow the Church’s teachings. In short, Coakley’s views on religious freedom and health care are dead wrong and Massachusetts voters will have an opportunity to show her how wrong she is this Tuesday on Election Day.
Of course, the impact of Tuesday’s special U.S. Senate election extends way beyond the borders of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Martha Coakley is the proverbial canary in the mine. We shall soon see whether Obama “change” inspired liberal policies are facing toxic headwinds that spell doom for other liberal Democrats who share Coakley’s views.
The Massachusetts Senate election is a clear weathervane of the country’s changing political landscape. It is a game changer in every sense of the word. If Coakley manages a narrow win, moderate House and Senate democrats will realize that voting lockstep with the ultraliberal Democratic leadership is a perilous and potentially career ending strategy. The currently numerically significant Democratic majority in both houses will for all practical purposes shrink to a slim practical majority. As a result, Liberal legislative initiatives like cap and trade, additional economic stimulus plans and other liberal initiatives will now have to tread a difficult uphill road to passage.
On the other hand, a Brown victory in this bluest of blue states will spell doom for the liberal Democratic agenda. It will prompt a slew of Democrats to not run for reelection and the pending health reform effort may very well be stopped dead in its tracks.
Developments within the Bay state and on the national political scene have provided a helpful tailwind to Scott Brown’s senate campaign. The increasing unpopularity of the health reform initiative and a poorly conducted campaign by Martha Coakley have leveled the playing field in a state where talented Republican politicians have often not fared very well. Perhaps Martha Coakley’s politically perilous assertion that devout Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, aka the “Catholic Slap” will be enough to carry Scott Brown to victory this Tuesday. If that does occur, there will be no mistaking that politically the times they are a’ changing most certainly in Massachusetts and, possibly, for the nation as well.
By Mark Henry
To borrow a racial epithet from the 60’s, Coakley said essentially that Catholics should not only move to the back of the bus they should be kicked off the bus. What possessed Coakley to make this slap in the face of the 39% of citizens of Massachusetts who are Catholics will be probed in detail in next weeks post mortem of this election.
Coakley’s responses in this radio interview gives Catholic voters a candid glimpse at her judicial, social and political worldview. What you see in Coakley’s minds eye is a shocking degree of hostility towards the First Amendment freedom of religion rights of Catholics. Additionally, her strong support for the very unpopular Democratic health reform initiative, with it’s federal abortion funding, has alienated many voters, Catholic and non-Catholic as well.
As the current Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley should know better that to use the oft misused separation of Church and State metaphor to justify denying religious freedom rights of Catholics. Coakley knows full well that the separation of Church and State principle is not found anywhere in the First Amendment or any other part of the U.S. Constitution. To the contrary, the First Amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from trampling on the rights of all religious, including Catholics.
Coakley’s assertion that that Catholic physicians lose their First Amendment protected religious rights once they start working turns the Constitution on its ear and is a dangerous position for any government official to espouse, let alone a State’s Attorney General. As stated earlier, the First Amendment generally protects religious freedom from government persecution and certainly does not justify prohibiting the free exercise of religious freedom as Coakley asserted in her interview.
Coakley’s hostility to Catholic rights of conscience is precisely the type of government intrusion upon religion that the First Amendment is intended to protect us from. As such, one could reasonably say that the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect the citizenry from the likes of Martha Coakley since she favors using naked federal power to stamp out the exercise of religious freedom in the health care arena.
Coakley’s comment also shows she is a liberal statist who neither understands nor respects the Constitution and its First Amendment protections of religious freedom. Similarly, Coakley’s views evidence a profound disrespect for Catholic teachings and Catholics who follow the Church’s teachings. In short, Coakley’s views on religious freedom and health care are dead wrong and Massachusetts voters will have an opportunity to show her how wrong she is this Tuesday on Election Day.
Of course, the impact of Tuesday’s special U.S. Senate election extends way beyond the borders of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Martha Coakley is the proverbial canary in the mine. We shall soon see whether Obama “change” inspired liberal policies are facing toxic headwinds that spell doom for other liberal Democrats who share Coakley’s views.
The Massachusetts Senate election is a clear weathervane of the country’s changing political landscape. It is a game changer in every sense of the word. If Coakley manages a narrow win, moderate House and Senate democrats will realize that voting lockstep with the ultraliberal Democratic leadership is a perilous and potentially career ending strategy. The currently numerically significant Democratic majority in both houses will for all practical purposes shrink to a slim practical majority. As a result, Liberal legislative initiatives like cap and trade, additional economic stimulus plans and other liberal initiatives will now have to tread a difficult uphill road to passage.
On the other hand, a Brown victory in this bluest of blue states will spell doom for the liberal Democratic agenda. It will prompt a slew of Democrats to not run for reelection and the pending health reform effort may very well be stopped dead in its tracks.
Developments within the Bay state and on the national political scene have provided a helpful tailwind to Scott Brown’s senate campaign. The increasing unpopularity of the health reform initiative and a poorly conducted campaign by Martha Coakley have leveled the playing field in a state where talented Republican politicians have often not fared very well. Perhaps Martha Coakley’s politically perilous assertion that devout Catholics should not work in emergency rooms, aka the “Catholic Slap” will be enough to carry Scott Brown to victory this Tuesday. If that does occur, there will be no mistaking that politically the times they are a’ changing most certainly in Massachusetts and, possibly, for the nation as well.
By Mark Henry
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Machiavelli; The Patron Saint of Health Reform Democrats
As we enter the final days of the epic effort to change America’s health care industry, we are witnessing first hand a low point in American politics. On the campaign trail President Obama promised a new era of transparency. We were told that change was needed and health care reform would occur in open door legislative sessions that the whole world would see, via C-Span no less.
What the Democrats promised us and what they have given us are worlds apart. Instead of a transparent health reform legislative process, the Democrats have pushed this legislation through in a secretive closed door manner which is unprecedented in America’s history. They have completely by passed the time honored legislative committee reconciliation process, opting instead for back room closed door deal making where political payoffs were extracted as the price for getting previously principled Democratic legislators to support this unpopular legislation. They even resorted to scheduling key health reform legislative votes on Christmas Eve to reduce scrutiny by we, the people. In so doing, they have shown us the true identity of the Grinch who stole Christmas.
In their “do anything to pass a law” strategy, they have even jettisoned planks near and dear to key democratic constituents like the elderly and unions. To top it off, they have brazenly marched forward with this health reform law undeterred by the fact that a large majority of Americans are very opposed to this type of health reform legislation.
The Democrats determined efforts to push through this health care takeover are hardly profiles in courage. Far from it. Instead, what we are seeing is a political modus operandi which is quite Machiavellian, smacking of Chicago-style politics. The governing strategy of the Democratic leadership has revealed a willingness to use any means necessary to achieve the end goal of a federal takeover of health care.
The first desperate means the Democrats employed was to put the financial burden of health care reform squarely on the backs of seniors. To finance this very expensive takeover of health care, the Democrats proposed draconian cuts to Medicare. While it remains to be seen how deep the Medicare cuts will be, it is close to a foregone conclusion that seniors will bear the brunt of the pain of health care reform. The fact that Democrats would so quickly “throw Momma off the train” to pay for health care reform and alienate the reliably democratic senior voting block speaks volumes about their insatiable appetite to expand their power over the health care industry which represents 16% of the nations GNP. First the banks, then the auto industry and now health care.
While seniors proved to be the low man on the totem pole that the Democrats would climb to take over health care, next in the pecking order to fall was the government insurance option. Giving up the government insurance option has proven to be a bitter pill for many Democrats as the government option is a short hop, skip and a jump away from the Democratic statists end goal of a single payer health insurance system.
However, Democrats have realized that half a loaf is better than none at all and it looks like they will tearfully sacrifice the government insurance option in exchange for a federal law requirement that all Americans buy insurance from the very same insurance industry that Democrats so publically demonized in late 2010. The fact that the IRS will be in charge of enforcing the federal mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance may make this concession easier for many Democrats to swallow.
The next voting block the Democrats seem to be willing to jettison to reach health care mecca are the labor unions. The Democrats proposed tax on Cadillac health insurance plans shows that they are willing to anger the loyally democratic union vote. However, getting past this rung on the political constituency totem pole is proving to be a slippery exercise and the union bosses are pushing back. More likely than not, Democratic leaders will revert to recent habit and retreat to back rooms and work out a compromise that reduces the negative impact of the Cadillac tax on unions.
Finally, at the top of the totem pole we have the most loyal of all Democratic voting blocks; the supporters of a women’s decision to kill her unborn child. The House and Senate versions of the health care legislation are far apart on this issue with the House’s Stupak amendment containing more substantial restrictions on federal funding of abortion than the Senate version does.
It remains to be seen whether Democrats leaders will have the temerity to arm twist their Democratic and largely pro-abortion members into voting for health legislation which contains meaningful restrictions on federal funding of abortions. If they do this, it will reveal a willingness to sacrifice a core value which is so fundamental to the modern Democratic Party - the power to abort an unborn child – that voting for such abortion restrictions must infuriate many of the rank and file Democrats in the House and Senate. Conversely, having such Stupak type abortion restrictions would be an encouraging sign to the Catholic community even though there are other aspects of the health legislation that are troubling.
If the Democrats ultimately do pass health reform legislation containing meaningful, albeit incomplete, abortion funding restrictions it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one and only sacrosanct core belief of current Democrat leaders is that power trumps ideology. Liberal Democratic allegiances to seniors, unions, abortion supporters and to the desire for a government insurance option will have sacrificed to the overriding objective of increasing federal power over the health insurance industry.
If by crafty use of the carrot and stick, Democrat leaders are really able to cajole their members to finally pass health care legislation containing significant abortion funding restrictions and get it to the President’s desk for signature, it will be a momentous occasion for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it will be the first time in recent history that major landmark legislation will have been passed against the wishes of a large majority of American voters. Additionally, the “pass a law at whatever cost” process this legislation took, bereft of transparency and replete with backroom vote buying, nefarious deal making and other legislative shenanigans, represents a new low in the annals of American lawmaking. It’s enough to make Machiavelli sit up, take notice and snicker in admiration.
However, more significant than either the unpopularity of this law or the reprehensible legislative journey it has taken is the troubling path America will have embarked on towards a larger more intrusive nanny-style federal government. The only question is whether by the time the mid-term elections come around in late 2010 it will be too late for America to reverse course and once again head in the direction that made America great. The leaders on the left side of the aisle are doubling up and betting the House (and maybe the Senate too!) that it will be too late for a course correction and that America will be irreparably slouching towards socialism.
By Mark Henry
What the Democrats promised us and what they have given us are worlds apart. Instead of a transparent health reform legislative process, the Democrats have pushed this legislation through in a secretive closed door manner which is unprecedented in America’s history. They have completely by passed the time honored legislative committee reconciliation process, opting instead for back room closed door deal making where political payoffs were extracted as the price for getting previously principled Democratic legislators to support this unpopular legislation. They even resorted to scheduling key health reform legislative votes on Christmas Eve to reduce scrutiny by we, the people. In so doing, they have shown us the true identity of the Grinch who stole Christmas.
In their “do anything to pass a law” strategy, they have even jettisoned planks near and dear to key democratic constituents like the elderly and unions. To top it off, they have brazenly marched forward with this health reform law undeterred by the fact that a large majority of Americans are very opposed to this type of health reform legislation.
The Democrats determined efforts to push through this health care takeover are hardly profiles in courage. Far from it. Instead, what we are seeing is a political modus operandi which is quite Machiavellian, smacking of Chicago-style politics. The governing strategy of the Democratic leadership has revealed a willingness to use any means necessary to achieve the end goal of a federal takeover of health care.
The first desperate means the Democrats employed was to put the financial burden of health care reform squarely on the backs of seniors. To finance this very expensive takeover of health care, the Democrats proposed draconian cuts to Medicare. While it remains to be seen how deep the Medicare cuts will be, it is close to a foregone conclusion that seniors will bear the brunt of the pain of health care reform. The fact that Democrats would so quickly “throw Momma off the train” to pay for health care reform and alienate the reliably democratic senior voting block speaks volumes about their insatiable appetite to expand their power over the health care industry which represents 16% of the nations GNP. First the banks, then the auto industry and now health care.
While seniors proved to be the low man on the totem pole that the Democrats would climb to take over health care, next in the pecking order to fall was the government insurance option. Giving up the government insurance option has proven to be a bitter pill for many Democrats as the government option is a short hop, skip and a jump away from the Democratic statists end goal of a single payer health insurance system.
However, Democrats have realized that half a loaf is better than none at all and it looks like they will tearfully sacrifice the government insurance option in exchange for a federal law requirement that all Americans buy insurance from the very same insurance industry that Democrats so publically demonized in late 2010. The fact that the IRS will be in charge of enforcing the federal mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance may make this concession easier for many Democrats to swallow.
The next voting block the Democrats seem to be willing to jettison to reach health care mecca are the labor unions. The Democrats proposed tax on Cadillac health insurance plans shows that they are willing to anger the loyally democratic union vote. However, getting past this rung on the political constituency totem pole is proving to be a slippery exercise and the union bosses are pushing back. More likely than not, Democratic leaders will revert to recent habit and retreat to back rooms and work out a compromise that reduces the negative impact of the Cadillac tax on unions.
Finally, at the top of the totem pole we have the most loyal of all Democratic voting blocks; the supporters of a women’s decision to kill her unborn child. The House and Senate versions of the health care legislation are far apart on this issue with the House’s Stupak amendment containing more substantial restrictions on federal funding of abortion than the Senate version does.
It remains to be seen whether Democrats leaders will have the temerity to arm twist their Democratic and largely pro-abortion members into voting for health legislation which contains meaningful restrictions on federal funding of abortions. If they do this, it will reveal a willingness to sacrifice a core value which is so fundamental to the modern Democratic Party - the power to abort an unborn child – that voting for such abortion restrictions must infuriate many of the rank and file Democrats in the House and Senate. Conversely, having such Stupak type abortion restrictions would be an encouraging sign to the Catholic community even though there are other aspects of the health legislation that are troubling.
If the Democrats ultimately do pass health reform legislation containing meaningful, albeit incomplete, abortion funding restrictions it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one and only sacrosanct core belief of current Democrat leaders is that power trumps ideology. Liberal Democratic allegiances to seniors, unions, abortion supporters and to the desire for a government insurance option will have sacrificed to the overriding objective of increasing federal power over the health insurance industry.
If by crafty use of the carrot and stick, Democrat leaders are really able to cajole their members to finally pass health care legislation containing significant abortion funding restrictions and get it to the President’s desk for signature, it will be a momentous occasion for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it will be the first time in recent history that major landmark legislation will have been passed against the wishes of a large majority of American voters. Additionally, the “pass a law at whatever cost” process this legislation took, bereft of transparency and replete with backroom vote buying, nefarious deal making and other legislative shenanigans, represents a new low in the annals of American lawmaking. It’s enough to make Machiavelli sit up, take notice and snicker in admiration.
However, more significant than either the unpopularity of this law or the reprehensible legislative journey it has taken is the troubling path America will have embarked on towards a larger more intrusive nanny-style federal government. The only question is whether by the time the mid-term elections come around in late 2010 it will be too late for America to reverse course and once again head in the direction that made America great. The leaders on the left side of the aisle are doubling up and betting the House (and maybe the Senate too!) that it will be too late for a course correction and that America will be irreparably slouching towards socialism.
By Mark Henry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)