What the Wall Stree Journal called: "the worst bill ever."

I must say I agree completely.



Hat tip: Athos

Sunday Morning Thoughts . . . on Church

A human subject, inasmuch as he becomes a theological person by a unique call and mission, is simultaneously deprivatized, socialized, and made the location and the bearer of community. -- Hans Urs von Balthasar

In his Theo-Drama (Vol. II), von Balthasar writes: "Human community and the immediate relation of each individual to God are inseparable from each other."

Which Cardinal Marc Ouellet succinctly sums up in a paper on von Balthasar's Christian ethics, where he writes that von Balthasar "advances beyond the Protestant individualism of justification by faith and the Catholic individualism of merit by recovering the essential implication of community in the occurrence of grace."

Which reminds me of a summary of my own: One cannot know God fully without knowing Christ. (Even though some who do not know Christ may well know God better than some who do, they cannot know God fully without knowing Christ, and -- more to the point -- him crucified.) And one cannot know Christ fully without the Church. (Though, again, some who stand outside the Church may well know Christ better than some of its members; nonetheless, one cannot know Christ fully without the Church.)

Just some Sunday morning thoughts, for what they're worth.

This just in . . . so to speak

By the power invested in me as the president of the Cornerstone Forum (a minuscule power, let me assure you), I hereby announce a new Cornerstone Forum catechetical principle. It is, wonder of wonders, from Hans Urs von Balthasar:

Grateful Astonishment Refutes Barren Ruminating.

Uphill on the HIll

From Americans United for Life:

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) stated on the House floor that all three Chairmen of the Committees of jurisdiction, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee George Miller (D-CA), and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel (D-NY) refused to offer assurances that they would support the House passed language that includes the Stupak-Pitts amendment during the House and Senate conference. Boehner urged Members considering a “yes” vote on final passage if the Stupak-Pitts amendment were passed, to reconsider their support in light of the Chairmens’ efforts to undermine the Stupak-Pitts agreement during conference.

What's worse than worst?

My friend Jill Fallon has a good roundup about what the Wall Street Journal calls "the worst bill ever" -- the Heath Care bill being debated at this moment in the House.
Jill's post is here.

Finding Candor Whevever It Can Be Found

Mark Steyn:

In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired. But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s no terrorism angle.

That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale, Ariz., arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized” daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two U.S. residents — one American, one Canadian — arrested a few days earlier for plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki’s brother shrugs that’s just the way it is. “One thing to one culture doesn’t make sense to another culture,” he says.

Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather talk about anything else — even in the Army.

Here's what is so distressing: Robert Spencer is unquestionably one of the West's preeminent experts on the Qur'an and the history of Islam. Like many of us, his frustration at the refusal of officialdom and the mainstream media to deal honestly with the issue of Islamic fanaticism is palpable. It is never, as far as I know, shrill. But when someone yells "fire," before we object to the alarmist tone we should check to see if there's actually something burning.

Anyway, what frustrates me today is that the only link to Robert Spencer's comment below -- which, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, should unquestionably be part of the public conversation -- as I say, the only link to Spencer is from the radio program of Michael Savage. I have never listened to Savage, but I suspect he would be tarred with the brush of right-wingism and therefore ignored. The problem -- my frustration -- is that these days one can only find intelligent remarks such as those Spencer makes in this audio on outlets like Savage's.

I long for the day when one could find them on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and . . . wan hope indeed, MSNBC. Until that happy day arrives, we have to find honesty and candor where it can be found.

The struggle will continue . . .

This from Creative Minority Report:

CAREFUL WHAT YOUR WISH FOR

The immediate reaction to news that Pelosi will allow an up or down vote on the Stupak amendment prohibiting funding abortion in the healthcare bill is to view it as a victory. We should be careful what we wish for.

Pelosi clearly does not have enough votes to pass the bill without the pro-life Dems on board. If it fails, then most likely some of the pro-life Dems will say, "Oh well, we tried" and vote for final passage of the full bill, abortion and all.

But if the Stupak amendment passes, we are clearly not out of the woods. In all likelihood, Pelosi would be able to cajole the radical pro-abortion Dems in the house to go along for now. The Senate does not care about abortion so their version of the bill will not include language similar to the Stupak amendment. The Stupak language would then likely be stripped in the reconciliation process and sent back for final passage.

At that point, no more amendments are permitted. Having the cover of having voted against abortion in the up/down Stupak vote, Pelosi might very well have enough votes to get final passage, abortion and all. They will say things like "Well I voted against the funding of abortion. But that is not possible now. The bill is not perfect, but people are suffering and so I will vote for final passage."

Clearly the Stupak amendment is a good thing as it is the only option we have now save killing the bill in its entirety. But even if it passes, federally funded abortion is not dead. The only way to prevent it is to kill the bill, once and for all.

If Stupak passes today, our work is just beginning.

Posted by Patrick Archbold here.

Update: Abortion in Health Care

Latest update from Americans United for Life:

An editorial in the Washington Post today asserted, “The controversy over abortion funding is similarly phony. Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered. The House bill would leave that restriction in place. It would exclude abortion from the list of benefits that plans participating in the insurance exchange would be required to offer. Instead, the exchanges would have to include one plan that covers abortion, along with one that doesn’t. Even so, the plans that cover abortion would have to take steps to make sure that federal funds are segregated from those used to pay for abortions.”

The only thing “phony” about the abortion funding controversy are these repeated misleading statements claiming the bills in Congress, as proposed, would not use federal dollars to fund abortion.

“Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered. The House bill would leave that restriction in place.”

The prohibition on federal funding of abortion, the Hyde Amendment, does not apply to H.R. 3962.

In fact, the abortion funding language of H.R. 3962 is exactly the opposite of the Hyde Amendment, which has passed every year for 33 years. Instead of codifying restrictions on abortion funding, H.R. 3962 codifies an abortion funding mandate.

The language of H.R. 3962 on its face mandates only coverage in the public option of those Hyde-permitted abortions (in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother). But, H.R. 3962 does not prohibit funding other abortions and it goes further – explicitly allowing the HHS Secretary to include all abortions in the public option. (Section 222(e)(3)). Since the decision would be made by pro-abortion HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, it is likely that Section 222(e)(3) will be used to extend the abortion funding mandate to cover all abortions.

“It would exclude abortion from the list of benefits that plans participating in the insurance exchange would be required to offer.”

While the bill would not force all private insurance plans to directly reimburse for abortion, the bill allows private health insurance plans that cover elective abortion to receive government subsidies (Section 222(e)(2)). This changes the status quo on federal funds being used towards insurance plans that provide abortion coverage.

In the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the government contributes to premiums of federal employees in order to allow them to purchase private health insurance. The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill that provides funding for the FEHB program has annually prohibited these government contributions from being used towards insurance plans that cover abortion since 1983 (with the exception of 1993-1995).

“Instead, the exchanges would have to include one plan that covers abortion, along with one that doesn’t.”

The bill does require that there be one insurance company in each region that does not directly reimburse for abortion. However, another provision of H.R. 3962 severely limits the extent an insurance company is allowed to be “pro-life.” Sec. 304(d) prevents any private insurance company participating in the Exchange from choosing not to contract with abortion providers.

Additionally, for the first time the government is mandating that there be a private insurance company that does provide abortion coverage in each region.

“Even so, the plans that cover abortion would have to take steps to make sure that federal funds are segregated from those used to pay for abortions.”

The bill includes language purporting to segregate “federal dollars” from “private dollars” that are used to pay for abortions (Sections 303(e)(2); 341(c)(3)) – but nothing alters the fact that this provision allows government dollars to go to private plans that cover abortion.

As Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) said last night in support of his amendment that would reflect the opinion of the majority of Americans and codify the restrictions of Hyde into H.R. 3962, “No federal dollars, no matter how you try to disguise it, should be used to fund abortion in this legislation.”

Latest Update: 11:45 Eastern Time Zone

This just in from Washington:

Moments ago, Planned Parenthood sent out a mass e-mail blast to abortion supporters calling it an EMERGENCY ...

... Here's what they're terrified of:

Late last night, the House leadership -- realizing their health care reform bill didn't have the needed votes while containing an abortion mandate -- agreed to allow a vote today on the bi-partisan pro-life amendment offered by Rep. Bart Stupak and Rep. Joe Pitts that explicitly excludes government funding of abortion in health care reform.

Your calls and e-mails made the difference to allow for this amendment which could help to save millions of lives from abortion -- and prevent Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry from receiving a massive government funded bailout!

Now, everything comes down to what's happening on the House floor right now.

Planned Parenthood is begging abortion advocates to call Congress now and "reject this attack..." by demanding opposition to the Stupak/Pitts amendment.

If they succeed and the abortion mandate is not removed from health care reform, Planned Parenthood will be sending out a victory e-mail tomorrow -- and preparing to ramp up its operations to handle the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

Even if you have called before, it is critical that you pick up the phone RIGHT NOW and tell your U.S. Representative: "Remove abortion funding and mandates from health care reform!"

If you know your Representative's name, call him or her through the House switchboard at:

(202) 224-3121

The 11th Hour . . .

In a surprise move after hours of tumultuous negotiations, the House Rules Committee, very early Saturday morning, approved rules for debate on the pro-abortion health care bill. Although it appeared Speaker Nancy Pelosi would deny one, it allows a vote on an amendment to remove abortion funding.

Pelosi's hand appeared to have been forced when pro-abortion House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced earlier in the day that she did not have enough votes to pass the bill because of objections from pro-life Democrats.

The committee okayed a Rule that allows the House to vote on the Stupak amendment, offered by pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, to the health care reform legislation.

If you do not want your tax dollars funneled into the pockets of people hired to kill children in the womb, now would be a very good time to call your Congressional representative and urge a YES vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

Second Thoughts . . .

Martin Kozlowski had this cartoon in the November 3rd Wall Street Journal:

We'll see.

"From Democracy to Despotism"

Here are two short videos. I urge you to take the time to view them.



Cardinal George of Chicago:



If you haven't seen them, there are other videos on this subject below.

Tomorrow is the Vote in Congress

Another important video:

Abortion is IN the Health Care Bill

If you're as concerned about this as I am, here is an organization I visited recently in Washington. It is an extraordinary organization of very dedicated people. I urge you to visit their website and do what you can to help.

The M-word and the T-word

Major Nidal Malik Hasan

Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — an Arabic phrase for "God is great!" — before opening fire, the base commander said Friday.

In a video clip on the CNN website, Anderson Cooper narrates security camera footage from a convenience store where Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspected killer in the Fort Hood attack, was buying something. The video showed Major Hasan in recognizably Islamic attire. Knowing his viewers where seeing this, and therefore unable to let it pass without comment, Cooper repeatedly said that Major Hasan's was "dressed in traditional garb."

Traditional garb? What tradition? Does it matter? Is it relevant to this story or just an irrelevancy? Was Major Hasan dressed in traditional Hopi garb? Traditional Sikh garb? Where's the adjective in that sentence? Why did Cooper not say? Cooper's fellow CNN reporters were eventually obliged to utter a few of the censored terms, discretely to be sure, as though they were of no real importance to the story.

Mark Steyn:

There's something deeply weird about the media's instinctive avoidance of the M-word or the T-word and the careless abandon with which they speculate about "post-traumatic stress disorder" even as the emerging facts render it absurd . . . One can forgive the press not getting the story right in the first hours, but it will be interesting to see how honestly they cover it as the facts emerge.

Every person honest with himself knows: No one in his or her right mind thinks Anderson Cooper is an Islamophobe. (If the term means an irrational fear of Muslims, how many suffer from it? Perhaps 1% of the population). Cooper left out a not insignificant detail of the story -- an irresponsible thing for a serious journalist to do -- because he did not want to be accused of Islamphobia, or perhaps, even more shamefully, he didn't want to be thought even mildly sympathetic with more politically conservative people who might be less cavalier about Major Hasan's religious motivations.

This sort of self-censorship is almost certainly why Major Hasan's army superiors and colleagues did not raise warning flags about his behavior, which -- had it been exhibited by anyone else, would have had immediate consequences. As a result of this fear of being labeled Islamophobic, this disturbed man was apparently allowed to continue to give psychological and psychiatric counseling to troubled soldiers. Can you imagine?

The news stories refer to the fact that Major Hasan was a psychiatrist far more often than that he was a Muslim, but which is more relevant to the story?

Is all this just sensitivity? What if the shooter in this crime had been an identifiable Christian -- say a priest with a Roman collar or a Bible-belt fundamentalist with big "I love Jesus" on is sleeveless T-shirt? Would Anderson Cooper have referred to the former as dressed in traditional garb and the latter as a local mechanic?

This fear -- not of being an Islamophobe (whatever that might be) but of being accused of being one -- is a very serious form of self-censorship that is reserved for only one religious tradition today. It is unhealthy for our society. I'm as weary of elite liberal anti-Catholicism as anybody, but as long as such things can be countered with reason and persuasion, I'll take anti-Catholic slurs any day over censorship, especially the pernicious self-censored sort.

P. S.

The headline of Barry Rubin's piece on the politically correct spin that will the official line for the mainstream media:

Understanding the Ft. Hood Attack:

America’s the Bad Guy This I Know
Because My TV Told Me So

Read it here.

Citizens behaving themsevles with dignity

We live in a raucous democracy, thank goodness. We don't all agree; again, thank goodness. These are bewildering times, and no one has a crystal ball. All that said, you may not agree with the people who gathered in Washington today -- I do -- but it would be demagoguery to slander them with the standard sobriquets: right-wingers, racists, angry white men, and so on. These are obviously decent citizens who were not just looking for a good excuse to interrupt their lives for a trip to Washington. They are the kind of people who made this country great, and they deserve a hearing.

Making it Official

This from the London Telegraph:

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

Hat Tip: Jill Fallon at The Business of Life

Canceling AARP

To each his own, but I just canceled my AARP membership in light of today's endorsement of the current Health Care bill. Vanity would have kept me from joining in the first place, but the slight reduction in the motel rates caused me to override my vanity, but it's not enough to make me override my principles.

I have just joined the American Seniors Association, a very attractive alternative, cheap motel rates and all. If any of you over-55 folks out there are interested in doing likewise, the toll-free number for canceling AARP is 888-687-2277, and you can go here to look into an ASA membership -- $15 a year.

The Decline of the West

My friend Jill Fallon quotes from a piece in the London Daily Express by Leo McKinstry, entitled: Sold Out to Europe by Generations of Weak, Lying Leaders:

The drive by the Eurocrats to impose the Lisbon Treaty has made a mockery of democracy. The Labour Government promised the British electorate a referendum but disgracefully reneged on that pledge. . . .

The result:

WE will lose any vestige of control over our borders, our justice system and our foreign policy . . .

Our national embassies will be soon be superseded by those of the EU, while our Army will be subsumed within the new European Defence Force. EU control of all environmental policy will mean sweeping new regulations on everything from bin collections to petrol prices.

Already 80 per cent of our laws are dictated by the EU. Lisbon will make Westminster redundant as an institution, there will be a Europe-wide police force, complete with all the sinister intrusive powers of the modern surveillance state. . . .

We can be sure that the fashionable ideology of political correctness will be rigorously enforced by our European masters, crushing the rich heritage of our Christian civilisation in the name of diversity. It is no coincidence that on the very day that the Lisbon Treaty was finally ratified by all 27 member states, the European Court ruled that crucifixes had to be banned in Italian schools for fear of offending minorities.

The definition of dictatorship is the inability to remove from power those who govern us, no matter how corrupt or authoritarian they are. That is exactly what the post-Lisbon EU will be like, wielding unprecedented authority but accountable to none, insulated by privilege and riddled with abuses. . . .

But now, without even a whimper, our politicians have thrown away our democratic liberties. What is even worse, the entire saga of our relationship with the EU has been based on the cynical deception of the public by the political establishment. . . .

"The demise of a once- great nation has arrived without a vote being cast or a bullet fired.

The whole story is here.