CINO Nonsense in Kentucky‏

It has been reported that the proposed merger of the University of Louisville Hospital with Catholic Health Initiatives has some people feeling uneasy. Chiefly among those who have misgivings about the merger are two Catholic In Name Only state representatives (who are both democrats) named Thomas Burch and Mary Lou Marzian who apparently suffer from self-identity issues. Some excerpts of what passes for persuasive argumentation in the op-ed piece that they jointly submitted to Kentucky.com are as follows...

"Representatives from Jewish Hospital, University Hospital and the University of Louisville have been reassuring patients that reproductive health services will not change after the merger with a Catholic medical institution, St. Mary's Healthcare. Their reassurances have not worked. Several hundred people have signed a statement opposing the move."

Isn't it interesting to see how effortlessly they replace the decidedly violent option of the killings of innocents with such sterile and Orwellian terminology like "reproductive health services"? Who could be against that? If I described the local meth dealer here as an "undocumented pharmacist", that makes him not sound so bad either and I seem like a heavy if I criticize him.

"..an advertisement released by the heads of the three hospitals assured readers "the merger partners are committed to expanding, not limiting, services," including tubal ligations performed at the time of Caesarean sections. We applaud their intentions, but we fear they may be somewhat naive."

If anyone in this discussion is "naive", it is you two. You seem quite content in criticizing the party that places emphasis on how precious human life is without ever examining the Culture of Death that is slowly, yet steadily creeping forward in western society. For instance, I would bet my bottom dollar that neither one of you could tell me what percent of babies that are euthanized in the Netherlands are done so without parental consent. From the cited article..

"It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg. For those who object to this assertion by claiming that German doctors killed disabled babies during World War II without consent of parents, so too do many Dutch doctors: Approximately 21 percent of the infant euthanasia deaths occurred without request or consent of parents. Moreover, since when did parents attain the moral right to have their children killed?



Euthanasia consciousness is catching. The Netherlands' neighbor Belgium decided to jump off the same cliff as the Dutch only two years ago. But already, they have caught up with the Dutch in their freefall into the moral abyss. The very first Belgian euthanasia of a person with multiple sclerosis violated the law; and just as occurs routinely in the Netherlands, the doctor involved faced no consequences. Now Belgium is set to legalize neo-pediatric euthanasia. Two Belgian legislators justify their plan to permit children to ask for their own mercy killing on the basis that young people "have as much right to choose" euthanasia as anyone else. Yet, these same children who are supposedly mature enough to decide to die would be ineligible to obtain a driver's license."

Please explain to me how this can't possibly happen here. Also, would an agency that has Catholic oversight be more or less likely to see such horrific, moral failure?

"At St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix, Sister Margaret McBride lost her job for approving abortion care that saved a woman's life. Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted had her removed. Do we want local hospital workers to obey an authority that puts anything above the life of the patient?"

Given the nature of doctor/patient confidentiality rules, I doubt that either of you had any greater access to the patient's medical records than the rest of us and you are simply reporting second hand information. Carefully left out of your assertion are the facts that the Catholic Physicians Guild in Phoenix fully supported the bishop in this case and that at least one neonatalogy expert has questioned whether the abortion was really necessary.

Although I'm just some schmuck sitting in his undershirt in Florida, allow me to make a suggestion. Instead of advocating, in your own words, "a full range of reproductive health care", why not side with that the majority of pro-aborts who now agree that 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are just plain wrong and support life for a change?

Why not try and be a representative of your denomination by following the example of New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan and pledge to help any pregnant woman in need? Carpe diem!

(Mathematician) Lennox: ' If I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, am I denying the authority of Scripture? '

It's the very precise, yet fundamental question that Oxford mathematician John Lennox asks. Here's a blurb from his new book...

"What did the writer of Genesis mean by ‘the first day’? Is it a literal week or a series of time periods? If I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, am I denying the authority of Scripture? In response to the continuing controversy over the interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis, John Lennox proposes a succinct method of reading and interpreting the first chapters of Genesis without discounting either science or Scripture. With examples from history, a brief but thorough exploration of the major interpretations, and a look into the particular significance of the creation of human beings, Lennox suggests that Christians can heed modern scientific knowledge while staying faithful to the biblical narrative. He moves beyond a simple response to the controversy, insisting that Genesis teaches us far more about the God of Jesus Christ and about God’s intention for creation than it does about the age of the earth. With this book, Lennox offers a careful yet accessible introduction to a scientifically-savvy, theologically-astute, and Scripturally faithful interpretation of Genesis."

I cannot count on both hands the number of times that conversations with skeptics eventually devolved into the finer points concerning Young Earth Creationism. I am of the opinion that the Hebrew word yom that appears in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis can be translated as a non-specific time period. What are your thoughts on the matter?

The Obama Administration's Ongoing Antagonism Towards Israel‏

"They say a picture is worth a thousand words. A photograph that should tell us a lot about Barack Obama shows him on the phone, talking with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Obama was seated, leaning back in his chair, with his feet up on the desk, and the soles of his feet pointed directly at the camera.

In the Middle East, showing the soles of your feet is an insult, as Obama undoubtedly knows.

This photograph was no accident. Photographers cannot roam around White House, willy-nilly, taking snapshots of the President of the United States as he talks to leaders of foreign nations.

It was a photograph with a message. No one would have known who was on the other end of the line, unless Obama wanted them to know -- and wanted to demonstrate his disdain." Thomas Sowell, May 31st, 2011 Link

I've blogged before concerning the Obama administration's apparent disdain for the state of Israel. I believe that the relationship is only getting worse after reading this article from Rick Richman.

I first got wind that the administration trying to uncouple the fundamental idea that the city of Jerusalem is located in Israel in Richman's earlier article from August 4th. Since then, it seems that the administration is only 'escalating' the situation...

"The White House, in an escalation of a closely-watched case the Supreme Court is preparing to hear on whether Congress or the President gets to decide American policy in respect of passports of American citizens born in Jerusalem, has quietly altered its website to remove the references to Jerusalem being in “Israel.”

The references to Jersualem had appeared in the cutlines of photographs on the White House Web site illustrating an account of the vice president’s trip to Jerusalem last year. The references to ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ were first disclosed in The New York Sun’s dispatch last week on Zivotofsky v. Clinton. The case asks the high court to rule on the constitutionality of the 2002 law that gives American citizens born in Jerusalem the right to have “Israel” entered on their passports as their place of birth.

The Sun’s report was titled “Jerusalem Case at Supreme Court May Pit White House Web Site Against the President,” and noted that the pictures might be pivotal evidence contradicting the administration’s claim that the 2002 law impermissibly infringes the President’s power to “recognize foreign sovereigns.” Since the White House had effectively acknowledged on its own website that Jerusalem is in Israel, as have other executive branch agencies, the report suggested there might not really be a constitutional issue in giving Zivotofsky a statutory right to have that fact noted on his passport.

Yesterday afternoon Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard posted one of the pictures, noting the reference to “Jerusalem, Israel” and contrasting it with the State Department press release issued earlier in the day stating the current administration policy to prohibit U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem from having “Israel” designated in their passports. The Halper posting went up at at 3:22 p.m. Less than three hours later, at 5:36 p.m. Halper noted that, at some time after he posted the picture, the White House had “apparently gone through its website, cleansing any reference to Jerusalem as being in Israel, including the pictures of Biden there last year.”

The sheer level of dirision aimed at the only true democracy in that entire region is beyond the pale. Is there anyone out there who would like to convice me that Obama is even remotely trying to treat Israel with anything resembling respect, never mind support, in the court of public opinion?

Suprise! Socialism Doesn't Work in Brazil Either

It seems that the massive public spending programs that Brazil embarked on under previous president Luiz Ignacio Lula de Silva will be unsustainable in the near future if economic news like this keeps turning up..

"The problem is that the deficit keeps widening as Brazil continues to pay for its material appetites. The consensus among analysts is that Brazil needs to press forward with its own investment in order to build its infrastructure and improve productivity. It isn't happening, however, at an adequate and influential rate.

Foreign investment in the Brazilian stock market has fallen off 70% in the first half of 2011. It's true that the previous year had abnormal growth, but this current drop is very serious. Credit growth has slowed and inflation has increased. Meanwhile, the inclination of strong governmental involvement in private enterprise in various sectors has further dampened foreign investment interest. Inflation has forced benchmark interest rates to 12.5% and rising.


Over-ambitious development has been the stimulus to inflation. Finished-product imports from such trading partners as China have outstripped any balance in exports. Brazil doesn't even have adequate fertilizer production, and that kind of thing hurts its agricultural exports. But the biggest shortfall has been in the field of petroleum production from its Obama-lauded deep well off-shore drilling. Far more outside investment is necessary to profitably exploit these considerable oil reserves. And here is where Lula's famous tight government oversight and control (read: socialist management) comes into negative play."

I've never been much of a fan of simply doling out federal funds to recipients. It creates a class of dependency. What if times are bad and the government decides to stop funding these payments? I think Arthur C. Brooks accurately describes what I think would be a much more preferrable arrangement between government and it's more needy citizens...

"
People flourish when they earn their own success. It's not the money per se, which is merely a measure -- not a source -- of this earned success. More than any other system, free enterprise enables people to earn success and thereby achieve happiness. For that reason, it is not just an economic alternative but a moral imperative.

People think that they will be happier if they have more money, but quickly find out that they're mistaken. When people are asked what income they require for a satisfying life, they consistently respond -- regardless of their income -- that they would need an income about 40 percent higher than whatever they're earning at the time.

Benjamin Franklin (a pretty rich man for his time) grasped the truth about money's inability to deliver life satisfaction. "Money never made a man happy yet, nor will it," he declared. "The more a man has, the more he wants. Instead of filling a vacuum, it makes one."

If money without earned success does not bring happiness, then redistributing money won't make for a happier America. Knowing as we do that earning success is the key to happiness, rather than simply getting more money, the goal of our political system should be this: to give all Americans the greatest opportunities possible to succeed based on their hard work and merit.

This is the liberty our founders wrote about, the liberty that enables the true pursuit of happiness.

Earned success gives people a sense of meaning about their lives. And meaning also is a key to human flourishing."

The Secular Blue Yonder

After 20 years of teaching a course on Just War Theory that utilized certain Bible verses in it's cirriculum, historically ignorant, free-speech bigots within the United States Air Force have succeeded in suspending the course...

"The use of Bible passage and other elements was just inappropriate,” he said. Mikey Weinstein, the president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, hailed the military’s decision to suspend the course. “We’re very pleased that the Air Force did it,” Weinstein told Fox News Radio. “Had they not done that, we would have filed an immediate class-action lawsuit in federal court to force their hand.”

Weinstein said the officers who complained are Protestant and Roman Catholics, noting the class was simply “unconstitutional training.”

“The United States Air Force was promoting a particular brand of right-wing fundamentalist Christianity,” he said. “The main essence was that war is a natural part of the human experience and it’s something that is favored by this particular perspective of the New Testament.

Weinstein said he was particularly concerned about a passage of Scripture that was taught from the New Testament book of Revelations. The passage, chapter 19, verse 11, describes Jesus as a mighty warrior, Weinstein said.

But David French, senior counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, said there is no violation of the Constitution. “Just-War theory has been a vital part of American military history for the last several hundred years,” French said, dismissing the complaints as what he called “another attempt to cleanse American history of its religious realities.”

“It’s about cleansing religion from the public square and building a completely secular society and military, said French. Commander Daniel McKay, a retired U.S. Navy Chaplain, agreed, telling Fox News Radio he was deeply concerned by the military’s decision.

“Why is it inappropriate to give our people guidelines that have withstood the test of time – to give us moral guidance,” McKay asked. “I think there are certain segments within our society who are making concerted efforts to take us away from our Judeo-Christian values, principles and morals,” he said."

I don't know for sure, but I would guess that the verses mentioned were addressed in a purely clinical sense in this course, trying to reason with cultural Christians who might be uneasy about pushing the Big Red Button. I find the timing rather interesting given the recent push to have atheist chaplains in the military. This whole, sorry incident is just another reminder of just how poorly understood the Establishment Clause really is and how well anti-religious lobbyists and attorneys have indoctrinated the last generation of Americans.

The Establishment Clause barred the federal government from establishing a national, state church as had existed in England and Scandinavian countries at the time. It did not prevent individual states from establishing their own and somehow the fact that Massachusetts had an official state religion (Congregationalist) up until 1833 is NEVER mentioned lest that detract from the atheist mantra that the Establishment Clause was meant to avoid any interaction by government with religion like the plague.

Was Jim Jones a Christian?

While perusing different articles today, I came across this one by Daniel J. Flynn which examines that very issue...

“Nobody’s gonna come out of the sky!” Jim Jones informed his flock. “There’s no heaven up there. We’ll have to have heaven down here!” The reverend threw the Bible to the floor in his Peoples Temple and openly stated his disbelief in God. Before Jim Jones orchestrated the deaths of more than 900 people at his South American jungle commune, Willie Brown, Angela Davis, Harvey Milk​, and other leading leftists lauded him as a hero. After the carnage at Jonestown, the Left conveniently dismissed him as just another crazed Christian fundamentalist"

I decided to look further into the belief system of this madman and I think he was quite possibly an atheist or at best, an agnostic. The sources quoted in his Wikipedia entry make reference to his claimed atheism. And then there is this quote offered up by his wife, Marceline...

"By the spring of 1976, Jones began openly admitting even to outsiders that he was an atheist. Despite the Temple's fear that the IRS was investigating its religious tax exemption, by 1977 Marceline Jones admitted to the New York Times that, as early as age 18 when he watched his then idol Mao Zedong overthrow the Chinese government, Jim Jones realized that the way to achieve social change through Marxism in the United States was to mobilize people through religion. She stated that "Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion," and had slammed the Bible on the table yelling "I've got to destroy this paper idol!" In one sermon, Jones said that, "You're gonna help yourself, or you'll get no help! There's only one hope of glory; that's within you! Nobody's gonna come out of the sky! There's no heaven up there! We'll have to make heaven down here!"

This doesn't sound like anything remotely like any orthodox Christian theology. One of the references cited in the Wikipedia article is from the Jonestown Institute whose web page features a transcript of a recorded interview with Jim Jones who stated the following (All instances of emphasis appear in the transcript)..

"I’m uh, you know, an agnostic. We have a— some emphasis on the terms of paranormal, because uh, it brings results, uh, there is something to therapeutic healing, all medical science has proven, but we don’t link that with any kind of causative factor of a loving God. Off the record, I don’t believe in any loving God. Our people, I would say, are ninety percent atheist. Uh, we— we think Jesus Christ was a swinger. He taught some pretty damn good things at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, uh, maybe a little paternalistic, but it’s still uh— all the emphasis of the judgment of character— the only time he ever mentioned judgment at all was in Matthew 25, and it had to do totally with what you were doing for other people, so we— we emphasize the teachings of Christ, but um, we’re a— we are as um— we’re the most unusual church I’ve ever run into.."

So when all of the evidence is examined, I think the answer is 'no'. Jim Jones was a crazed charlatan who utilized a patina of religion in his socialist side-show masquerading as a church but ultimately he was only out for himself.

The Bizarre Form of Tourette's Syndrome of the Left

“I always use the word ‘extreme,’ that’s what the caucus instructed me to do the other week,” Sen. Chuck (you) Schumer (D-NY) 3/29/11

Although by and large, I consider most democrat members of congress (and a few republicans) to be complete moonbats, you have to admire the consistancy of the Left in keeping up their attacks against conservative members of congress. Let's count the ways they demonize the opposition as "extreme", yet are so admirably choreographed to all stay on the same page...

Nancy Pelosi: Republican legislation 'Extreme' 2/11/2011

Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL): Republicans Becoming More Extreme 7/27/11

"The extremism of these people; they're not satisfied with a vote on it, they want a guarantee that it pass before they'll allow an extension of the debt limit. I mean, how bizarre can anyone be?" Senate Majority Leader (Dingy) Harry Reid (D-NV) in debt negotiations with republicans Link, 7/29/2011

"We should not let these extremists dictate direction of debate" Harry Reid again, referring to republicans, 7/25/2011 Link

Harry Reid again, ‘Extremists Have Locked Down This Congress’ 7/29/11

"There are 100 people in the House who don’t care if we default, who are extreme and ideological" The aforementioned Sen. Chuck (You) Schumer (D-NY) re: debt negotiations with republicans 7/25/2011

Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE): Sharon Angle. Christine O'Donnell 'Extreme'

You got that Lemming? Republican=Extreme. No free thought allowed here. We'll tell you what to believe and we merely have to make the accusation, not back it up. You do not have the ability to do your own research on the matter and thus form your own thoughts based on the pertinant information.

On a related note, who here would ever like to be "held hostage"? It's nothing that would particularly interest me, but apparently this is another part of the democrat meme of marginalizing republicans as has been recently well documented...

"STENY HOYER: (rotunda noise) The Republicans are holding hostage the credit of the United States of America.

DEBBIE "BLABBERMOUTH" SCHULTZ: ...our Republican colleagues to hold our economy hostage.

DINGY HARRY: The Republican Party is holding our economy hostage.

CHUCK-U SCHUMER: (rotunda noise) It didn't say, "Hold America hostage."

LOUISE SLAUGHTER: ...hold the debt ceiling hostage.

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE: One party is holding the country hostage.

JOHN OLVER: The debt limit has never before been held hostage.

BARBARA LEE: Republicans are holding our economy hostage.

EARL BLUMENAUER: ...willing to take hostage the debt ceiling.

JASON ALTMIRE: Stop holding America's credit rating hostage.

ROSA DeLAURO: The Republican majority continues to hold the American economy hostage.

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Let's not hold the entire American economy hostage.

JOHN LARSON: ...ideological HOSTAGE situation...

LLOYD DOGGETT: The only belt they're really tightening is right around the neck of those hostages.

JAMES CLYBURN: Holding the American economy hostage.

JESSE JACKSON, JR.: This President is being treated differently!

SPEAKER PRO-TEM: (gavel banging)

JACKSON: No other President has been stuck up, shook down, or held hostage"

And on and on it goes. Is it too much to ask that members of congress try to work together without characterizing the opposition as some sort of parody? Apparently so and don't even get me started on Tea Party generalizations

Next we come to the obligatory Taliban references..

Republican Taliban declare Jihad on Obama


Jim Moran (D-VA): GOP is the 'Taliban ticket'


DNC: GOP Has Thrown In With 'Terrorists -- Taliban and Hamas'


Representative Alan Grayson “compared Republicans to the Taliban” in his campaign

Are you getting the entire picture yet? Republicans are the ideological equals to extremist, 9th century throwbacks who utilize improvised explosive devices to implement their agenda through terrorism and who sincerely want to take you hostage.

Such hate-filled hyperbole is so verfiably predominant on the Left, it would be laughable if it were not so counterproductive.