
Here is a Lenten project worth considering. Convert Obama.
Faith people, faith!
(h/t american catholic)
.
"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." (Sir Winston Churchill)
From the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:
"It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, today. In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show His Holiness a photograph of my family’s papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren."
From the Press Office of the Holy See:
"Following the General Audience, the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage. His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception until natural death, which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists, and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of development"...
...her office’s statement on today’s meeting makes it clear something else was afoot: that Pelosi....was trying to recruit Benedict XVI (“Joseph Ratzinger, D., Bavaria”?) to Team Nancy....
...His Holiness wasn’t buying it.
He told Pelosi, politely but unmistakably, that her relentlessly pro-abortion politics put her in serious difficulties as a Catholic, which was his obligation as a pastor. He also underscored — for Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, Rose DeLauro, Kathleen Sebelius, and everyone else — that the Church’s opposition to the taking of innocent human life, at any stage of the human journey, is not some weird Catholic hocus-pocus; it’s a first principle of justice than can be known by reason. It is a “requirement of the natural moral law” — that is, the moral truths we can know by thinking about what is right and what is wrong — to defend the inviolability of innocent human life. You don’t have to believe in papal primacy to know that; you don’t have do believe in seven sacraments, or the episcopal structure of the Church, or the divinity of Christ, to know that. You don’t even have to believe in God to know that. You only have to be a morally serious human being, willing to work through a moral argument — which, of course, means being the kind of person who understands that moral truth cannot be reduced to questions of feminist political correctness or partisan political advantage...
...Pewsitter.com, a Catholic news portal, is launching the nationwide “Withholding Communion” petition. The goal of the petition drive is to gather a least 1 million petitions for presentation to the U.S. Bishops and the Vatican, Pewsitter.com said in a news release....
....While the Catholic faithful understand and support the behind-the-scenes dialogue and diplomacy that goes on with prominent Catholics by the bishops to reconcile them with the Church, when such dissent continues for years and in some cases decades in spite of the actions and activities that have been undertaken by past and present bishops, then it becomes necessary for a bishop to take a formal public stand to prevent further scandal, said Pewsitter.
“Unfortunately what has happened is that dissenting Catholics have continued to receive Holy Communion with impunity -- and this has led to the false impression that the Church condones or at least tolerates such dissenting opinions on serious moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research, to name a few,” said the Pewsitter statement. “Not only do these prominent Catholics disregard the Church’s teachings, but in many cases they actively and publicly promote policies and legislation that undermines, opposes and contradicts the Church’s teachings. An example of two such Catholics would be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joseph Biden.
...The Vatican Press Office released a note this morning detailing part of the conversation which Pope Benedict XVI had with Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The note reads: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."
Vatican insiders stressed to LifeSiteNews.com that such releases are always phrased in diplomatic language and thus the correction of the Speaker who describes herself as a "faithful Catholic," despite her abortion advocacy, should be taken as a firm rebuke....
Pro-life advocates are celebrating the fact that freedom of speech has been upheld on two Canadian university campuses in the past week, as two student unions have decided to treat pro-life clubs fairly despite opposition to giving the clubs official status.
Choose Life McGill, the pro-life club at McGill University in Montreal Quebec, received full accreditation as a campus club at the student union's board meeting on February 12th. The final vote after a more than 2 hour debate was in favor of ratifying the club. The vote came after Choose Life operated as an interim club for 3 months.
Meanwhile, at the University of Victoria, pro-life students had been fighting for fair treatment from their student union since October 2008, when they were denied the same funding as all other campus clubs. On February 10th, the student union board voted to grant the pro-life club, Youth Protecting Youth, the same funding that is applicable to other campus groups.
Both of these decisions come shortly after the campus pro-life club at the University of Guelph had their club status restored in a January 27th meeting. All allegations against Guelph Life Choice were dropped after a term of battling with their student union...
...a preposterous suggestion that every publication in the country, including "media services" websites, be required by law to belong to a national press council that could adjudicate breaches of professional standards and complaints of discrimination. Chillingly, the council would have the power to order offending media to publish its findings, along with counterarguments from complainants. And in a bit of verbal legerdemain that would make Big Brother wince, the commission claimed that this would not constitute censorship.
The most frightening thing about this bit of nonsense is that it's hard to see what possible reason the commission has for proposing such a draconian measure. Scan Canadian media from, say, This Magazine on the left to blogger Ezra Levant on the right, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anything that pushes the boundaries of reasonable discourse...
...Commissioner Hall also claims that the media have a responsibility to "engage in fair and unbiased journalism." Those are certainly ideals The Gazette and most other Canadian publications strive to achieve, with admittedly imperfect success. But that responsibility, like membership in the Quebec Press Council, is voluntary. If someone wants to start a rabidly partisan, scurrilous scandal sheet, that's fine with us, too. State-compelled norms of behaviour are censorship, not idealism.
The underlying problem here might be that liberty has once again run into one of its most formidable foes - the bureaucratic mind. Such minds recoil at the unruliness of the media - among other things - and won't rest until all participants in public discourse are fully regulated by government. They do all this "for the common good," of course.
But when they succeed, we can all kiss our precious freedoms goodbye.
...Only 26% of voters believe conservatives have an unfair advantage in the media, the argument several senior congressional Democrats use in pushing for the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. Sixty-four percent (64%) disagree.
Most (52%) liberals say conservatives have an unfair advantage, while 79% of conservatives and 64% of moderates disagree.
Even a majority of Democratic voters (53%) say that conservatives do not have an unfair advantage in the media.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of voters overall say it is possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media with the Internet, cable networks, satellite radio, newspapers, radio and TV available. Just 19% disagree.
But 51% say it is at least somewhat likely that the Democratic-controlled Congress will restore the Fairness Doctrine, which requires holders of broadcast licenses to present balanced political coverage of important issues, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it is Very Likely....
... In a survey just before Election Day in November, 68% of voters said reporters covering a political campaign try to help the candidate they want to win, and 51% thought they were trying to help Democratic candidate Barack Obama in 2008. Only seven percent (7%) said reporters were trying to help Republican candidate John McCain.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Republicans oppose government-mandated political balance on all radio stations, while the plurality of Democrats (49%) support it. Voters not affiliated with either major party also are opposed by a two-to-one margin....
Amnesty International, a "human rights" organization that opposes the right to life of unborn children, is now demanding that Mexico force doctors to do abortions.
In simultaneous protests held last Friday in Mexico City and Madrid, Amnesty International and other pro-abortion organizations denounced the Mexican government for refusing to require physicians to perform abortions on rape victims and provide abortifacient "emergency contraception."
The protests were held in response to the decision to alter Mexico's Official Norm 046 on treating victims of sexual violence. The original text, approved by the government last July, required health professionals to perform abortions on rape victims. The final version, however, was altered by Mexico's Secretary of Health Jose Angel Cordova Villalobos, to protect the right of doctors to refuse to participate in abortions....
...Canada? It's a free country, or at least it's supposed to be. But not, it seems, if you hold a view on the abortion issue that is contrary to that of the establishment.
The abortion debate should not, however, be the point here. Any more than a discussion of free expression should be framed around party politics, religion, sports or favourite cheese.
We have the right to disagree, to argue and, short of violence, to be passionate and committed.
It's the lifeblood that should flow through any healthy body politic.
Yet abortion has become a topic that is different from any other in the world. And the examples are legion....