Catholic Bishop: “No Health Care Reform Is Better Than The Wrong Health Care Reform” - Canadacare Imploding – Death Panels Charge Is Right On – Communists In Power To Ram Death Care Down Our Throats – Energy Workers Rally Against Insane Climate Plan – DOMA Under Attack By Feds - Immigration Reform That Respects Taxpayers And The Law


Tuesday August 18, 2009


Bishop Nickless: "No Health Care Reform is Better than the Wrong Health Care Reform"


Clarifies Catholic Church position on health care distribution: matter of prudence, not moral imperatives




By Kathleen Gilbert

SIOUX CITY, Iowa, August 18, 2009 ( - In his latest column, Bishop R. Walter Nickless of the Diocese of Sioux City joined a growing number of Catholic leaders in stated opposition to the Obama health care legislation, which is poised to expand abortion by mandating abortion coverage and providing taxpayer subsidies to abortion providers.  Niclkess also noted that the Catholic Church has no position for or against any kind of health care distribution, and argued that the structure proposed by the legislation would ultimately be detrimental to distributing health care according to need. 

"No health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform," wrote Nickless in a column posted on the diocesan website. 

Nickless noted that, amid the "confusion and inaccurate information being thrown around," he and his "brother bishops have described some clear 'goal-posts' to mark out what is acceptable reform, and what must be rejected." 

"First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research," he said.  "We refuse to be made complicit in these evils, which frankly contradict what 'health care' should mean. 

"As a corollary of this, we insist equally on adequate protection of individual rights of conscience for patients and health care providers not to be made complicit in these evils," he continued.  "A so-called reform that imposes these evils on us would be far worse than keeping the health care system we now have."

Some Catholic organizations, including the Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities USA, responded to the health care push on Capitol Hill by advocating "health care reform" in the abstract, while not addressing the abortion-promoting and other troubling aspects of President Obama's legislation.  The groups responded to criticism by stating that they did not support abortion-promoting legislation or any particular measure; however, none backed down from their original July statement calling upon legislators to enact health care reform "immediately."

Bishop Nickless' column also refuted the notion that the Catholic Church considers "health care," as such, to be a natural human right.  Because health care does not come "from God directly" as does the natural bounty of food, water, and air, he said, health care falls in the realm of a political right, as it comes "from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion."

"As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care," wrote Nickless.  How best to administer care to meet this need, he said, falls under the category of "prudential judgement" - in other words, a decision not directly subject to a moral imperative one way or the other.

Nickless emphasized that the Church "does not teach that government should directly provide health care," and argued that making health care "subject to federal monopolization" was a prudentially poor decision. "While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit," he opined, "it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined 'best procedures,' which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens."

"Private, religious hospitals and nursing homes, in particular, should be protected, because these are the ones most vigorously offering actual health care to the poorest of the poor," the bishop noted.

Nickless said that H.R. 3200, as it stands, fails both by moral and prudential standards.  He confirmed that the bill circumvents the Hyde amendment - which prohibits federal funds from going to abortions - both by creating a flow of funds outside the scope of the Hyde amendment, and by "creatively manipulating" how other funds are given to abortion groups.  Nickless also criticized the "public insurance option" proposed by the bill, saying that it would give smaller employers a financial incentive to dump employees into the public insurance.  "This will saddle the working classes with additional taxes for inefficient and immoral entitlements," he said. 

"I encourage all of you to make you voice heard to our representatives in Congress," Nickless urged.  "Tell them what they need to hear from us: no health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform. 

"Insist that they not permit themselves to be railroaded into the current too-costly and pro-abortion health care proposals.  Insist on their support for proposals that respect the life and dignity of every human person, especially the unborn.  And above all, pray for them, and for our country."  (Click here to see Bishop Nickless' discussion of health care reform in full.) 

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, and Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Ore. have also given strong statements in opposition to the current form of the legislation President Obama has been aggressively pushing on Capitol Hill. 

See related coverage:

Bishop Vasa: No Support for "Fatally Flawed" Obamacare Bill

Cardinal Rigali, Abp. Chaput Intensify Warnings Against Obamacare's Abortion Expansion
Posted: Monday August 17, 2009 at 12:32 pm EST by Judie Brown


This guest commentary was published on the Lead Us Not into Temptation blog site on August 3, 2009 and is used with its kind permission.
By Carol McKinley
It’s been a tough few weeks for President Obama. The urban legends he has told to garner support for the march towards socialism are finally losing their traction.

You could hear the sound of screeching brakes all over America at the collision between an elite Harvard professor and a president making a racial incident out of a police officer’s response to a 911 call – and the government takeover of health care. America is coming out of the trance.

As a warrior in the trenches, I couldn’t count the number of times prayer mercenaries have transformed a blunder into a period of grace. Catholics had better take full advantage of the reprieve. We have a lot to lose in the ethical conundrums of rationing treatment and mercy in a government-controlled HMO.

The mission of providing ethical, compassionate, quality health care to the sick and poor is about to be “reformed” into setting criteria that determine the value of the patient’s life measured against the cost of treating their illness.

The Church’s teachings

Denying medical care to the poor, elderly and catastrophically ill to benefit the government is
diametrically opposed to Catholic ethics and the Catholic animus. Pope Benedict XVI expounded on “[t]he inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual” as a “constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2273, emphasis in original) in his recently published encyclical, Caritas in Veritate:

Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man’s true good… (Section 28, emphasis in original)

In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology… (Section 51, emphasis in original)

To the tragic and widespread scourge of abortion we may well have to add in the future – indeed it is already surreptitiously present – the systematic eugenic programming of births. At the other end of the spectrum, a pro-euthanasia mindset is making inroads as an equally damaging assertion of control over life that under certain circumstances is deemed no longer worth living. Underlying these scenarios are cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity. These practices in turn foster a materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human life. Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development?... While the poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich, the world of affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those knocks, on account of a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human. (Section 75)


Obama projects that giving access to our health care system to 50 million more people will cost Americans less money than it does now. In fact, at the breaking point, Obama claims his health care program will start paying for itself. Like his projections about the economy, writing off the debt of irresponsible people who caused the mortgage crisis, cash for clunkers and “racial profiling,” Obama is, once again, way off the mark.

You don’t have to be a mathematician to figure out that giving access to 50 million more people in an already burdened health care system and spending less means the patients currently in the system will be sacrificing their present level of care and services. There have been negative impacts on health care access, cancer survival rates, and the quality of life for the elderly, learning disabled and sick in every country where there has been a government takeover of health care. Obama can’t escape the laws of supply and demand. Supporting laws destined to place life-threatening hardships upon the disadvantaged and suffering is fundamentally immoral.

We’ve got to digest the threats to the sanctity of life and Catholic conscience protections, educate grassroots Catholics and make a lot of noise in the public square in the next several weeks. We’re going to see Obama infomercials pushing overhaul in the mainstream media in the month of August, ad nauseam. The theologically fallacious Catholics United is firing salvos. Catholic Charities USA, the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul and the Catholic Health Association are banding together to advance the taxpayer-funded abortions and euthanasia assistance crafted into the legislation.

Stand up and fight.

The threat to the elderly

Reading the proposals, there is no doubt that seniors would pay a heavy price. The White House has proposed the creation of an independent panel to recommend Medicare and Medicaid cuts. Seniors would not only be losing benefits. From all indications, it appears that they would be losing control over life-and-death decisions and care. This is inhumane.

Last week, EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo put up a must-read post on his blog, raising the same concerns many have over disturbing references in the bill:

The elderly or people with catastrophic diseases are clearly in the sights of the administration and the congressional leadership for the simple reason that they cost too much. A quarter of all Medicare payments occur in the last year of life, costing the government more than 100 billion dollars a year, according to Forbes Magazine.

“One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and ‘the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.’ This mandate invites abuse, and seniors could easily be pushed to refuse care.” [interview with Betsy McCaughey, patient advocate and former lieutenant governor of New York]

This “Advance Care Planning Consultation” would encourage all of us, but especially those with severe illnesses to submit to hospices rather than pursue expensive therapies that might extend life (and cost a bundle). The bill also establishes a tracking system to insure that doctors are advocating “advance care directives” where you predetermine what type of care you would accept or refuse at the end of life. The problem with all of this is it assigns a utilitarian value to human life. If you are too old or disabled, there will be a built-in incentive to push you into hospice and palliative care rather than work to beat the disease.


This isn’t hype and hysteria from the fringe. Calm, credible people reading the bills are drawing these same conclusions across the board. Arm yourself with citations from the bill, go to senior centers in your hometown and educate them about the contents of the “reforms.” The mainstream media is not going to publish the truth, but there is nothing holding us back from doing a little “community organizing” of our own.

‘By their fruits, you will know them’

Seniors and, in fact, most people in this country, are unaware that Obama recently appointed a science czar (John Holdren) who co-authored a book entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Among Holdren's philosophies are the following: 

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility.”


This correlates with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent, breathtaking admission that Roe was to rid us of undesirables, i.e. “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

The president has surrounded himself with radical pro-abortionists, including Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who will have a heavy hand of influence in shaping and executing policies. Catholics, other Christians and other decent people can’t ignore the dangers of giving such people power over life, death and health. Educate your priests and those in your parish. With enlightenment on Obama’s trajectory, the health care bill will take on a new patina.

The Massachusetts experience

Catholics should be outraged that the poor are being used and exploited by the White House to swindle them out of benefits and life itself. Catholics United, Catholic Charities and other social pirates who are propagating the myth that this type of health care “reform” is about service to the poor should be vigorously castigated. The poor already have health coverage in combined federal- and state- subsidized programs. (For example, in Massachusetts, there is MassHealth – Medicaid and SCHIP.)

In Massachusetts, where health care “reform” was instituted in 2007, benefits have been siphoned off from the indigent and transferred to households earning $77,400 for a family of five. For a family of eight, the household income can be up to $111,080. But families earning $30,000, previously eligible for free health care, are burdened with premiums and co-payments costing nearly $10,000 for the least expensive plan.

In fact, in early July, Boston Medical Center (formerly known as Boston City Hospital, serving the poorest of the poor in Boston) filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The suit says the hospital will lose more than $100 million next year because the state has lowered Medicaid reimbursement rates and stopped paying Boston Medical “reasonable costs” for treating other poor patients.


“We filed this suit more in sorrow than in anger,” said Elaine Ullian, the hospital’s chief executive. “We believe in health care reform to the bottom of our toes, but it was never, ever supposed to be financed on the backs of the poor, and that’s what has happened in Massachusetts.”

The central charge in the suit is that the state has siphoned money away from Boston Medical to help pay the considerable cost of insuring all but a small percentage of residents…

According to the suit, Massachusetts is now reimbursing Boston Medical only 64 cents for every dollar it spends treating the poor. About 10 percent of the hospital’s patients are uninsured – down from about 20 percent before the law’s passage in 2006. But many more are on Medicaid or Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized insurance program for low-income residents.


Astoundingly, with all the rancor and rhetoric from Democrats about the compassionate immigration policies absent in the Republican agenda, when the cost of operating “health care reform” produced an ever-growing deficit, 30,000 legal immigrants were the first people thrown under the bus by the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts legislature: 30,000 of them received letters of health care termination.

The cost of providing health care to the 30,000 immigrants is approximately $130 million a year. A vote on July 29 restored $40 million of the budget, leaving uncertainty about the effect of eliminating $90 million in coverage for permanent residents who have had green cards for less than five years.

Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s former senior adviser, provided an informed analysis of the siphoning off of funds from the poor:

Mr. Obama’s problem is that nine out of 10 Americans would likely get worse health care if ObamaCare goes through. Of those who do not have insurance – and who therefore might be better off – approximately one-fifth are illegal aliens, nearly three-fifths make $50,000 or more a year and can afford insurance, and just under a third are probably eligible for Medicaid or other government programs already.

For the slice of the uninsured that is left – perhaps about 2% of all American citizens –Team Obama would dismantle the world’s greatest health-care system.


Don’t wait for clerical leadership

There are valuable lessons to be learned from the Catholic trenches in Boston in terms of what lies ahead nationally. In late February of this year, the Caritas Christi health care delivery network sought and was awarded a contract that includes providing abortions, family planning services and other moral evils to the uncatechized, the unsuspecting poor and women emotionally distraught due to an unplanned pregnancy.

With the advice and public consent of Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Caritas gave the Commonwealth written assurances that Catholic medical staff would inform women of health care options, including abortions. They appointed NARAL members to serve as advisors and agreed to give them access to monitor Catholic health care workers to ensure compliance.

Caritas set up a corporation, sought out and signed contracts with abortionists, set up a 24-hour family planning/abortion hotline number and hired employees to direct women to the abortionists with whom it contracted and took a 49-percent interest in the operation. A handful of Catholics relentlessly exposed the arrangement and, with some assistance from American Life League, we were able to get Cardinal O'Malley to retreat from ownership in the operation. However, the arrangement marched forward with all the abortion contracts, the 24-hour hotline, written assurances and NARAL oversight of Caritas employees intact.

It should be noted that Cardinal O’Malley tried to generate support for the arrangement by purporting that Catholic theology permitted entering into a contract that binds a Catholic in the performance of moral evils; in effect, he claimed that even though we realize the sinful nature of performing those moral evils, so long as we recruit others to perform the evils, it does not violate Catholic ethics. Theologically, spiritually and ethically, nothing could be more unsound. Knowing something is wrong and sinful, and then baiting somebody else into doing it who doesn’t know, compounds the sin. The Caritas arrangement is as ethical as hiring Kevorkian to kill your elderly parents when they become a personal and financial burden.

The cardinal outsourced his conscience to the National Catholic Bioethics Center, which reportedly gave him a formal opinion stating the current arrangement is ethically sound. Repeated requests to the cardinal to release the opinion of the NCBC have been rebuffed.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear about those who give scandal by becoming their “neighbor’s tempter” (Sections 2284–2287). Leading others to do evil “takes on a particular gravity” for those in authority who cause it:

Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!” (Section 2287)


The fight for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the next generation of Catholics is in the hands of lay leaders. Every one of us must raise our voices in the public square.
Carol McKinley is a pro-life activist, a paralegal working in the affordable housing industry and the creator of the Lead Us Not into Temptation blog site. Her activism was inspired by a desire to preserve her three children’s faith from the ever-growing influence of Planned Parenthood’s sexual promiscuity and abortion agenda in both public and Catholic academia. She resides in the challenging city of Boston.

Judie Brown






Tuesday August 18, 2009


British Doctors Practising "Slow" Euthanasia through Deep Sedation: BBC Report



By Hilary White

LONDON, August 18, 2009 ( - A BBC report has revealed that physicians in the UK are increasingly seeing and using "continuous deep sedation" as a form of "slow" euthanasia. Adam Brimelow, BBC News health correspondent, writes that the use of continuous deep sedation, also known as "terminal sedation" is becoming more common in the UK and may be the way physicians are skirting the law prohibiting direct euthanasia. 
Research has shown that 16.5 percent of all deaths in the UK are associated with continuous deep sedation until death, a number twice that of Belgium and the Netherlands, both countries that already have legalised direct euthanasia.

Deep sedation can be used intermittently or continuously until death, and the depth of sedation can vary from a lowered state of consciousness to unconsciousness.  Under UK law, patients can give a directive to medical staff that they refuse 'palliative care' or 'terminal sedation', or 'any drug likely to suppress respiration'.

Alex Schadenberg, the head of Canada's Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, said that continuous deep sedation is a technique that can be used ethically in cases of dying patients to alleviate intractable pain, such as neuropathic pain that does not respond to morphine, but the ethics depends upon the situation and the intention.

"It's important to make the distinction," Schadenberg told, "between what we do with someone who is nearing death and someone who is in pain but not dying." In some cases, he said, patients who are not dying but may be suffering are put into deep sedation, and then dehydrated to death - a use that is always unethical.

However, "if your patient is nearing death and is experiencing organ failure, you really can't be putting food and fluid into a body that can't use the fluids. When the body is shutting down, this is a natural part of the dying process. But when they're not dying, like Terri Schiavo, or someone who is experiencing great pain associated with cancer, that is a different issue, because then we are talking about causing that person's death.

"[Deep sedation] can be a backdoor route to euthanasia if it is used unethically," he said. "The issue is intention. The intention must be the alleviation of pain and suffering. Even a long-term sedation can be ethical as long as the person is not being dehydrated to death. A good palliative care physician won't use the technique very often."

Last year, Dutch researchers found that the use of continuous deep sedation until death was becoming more widespread in the Netherlands where direct euthanasia is already legal. In 2001, researchers found that in six European countries deep sedation was used in 8.5 percent of all deaths in patients with cancer and other diseases.

"The increased use of continuous deep sedation for patients nearing death in the Netherlands suggests that this practice is increasingly considered as part of regular medical practice," said lead researcher Judith Rietjens, a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Public Health at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam.

"Also, the use of continuous deep sedation may in some situations be a relevant alternative to the use of euthanasia for patients," Rietjens said.

Deep sedation is associated now with approximately 10 percent of all deaths in the Netherlands, an increase that coincided with an increase in public disquiet about the numbers of active euthanasia cases - numbers that have since declined.

Schadenberg said that the answer to the puzzle is simple: "The statistics of active euthanasia have gone down in the Netherlands because they are simply resorting to deep sedation instead.

"But in fact this simply means that patients are being euthanised slowly in conjunction with the withdrawal of fluids. It is why this is being called 'slow euthanasia'. A lethal injection is quicker, but in fact the ethics are no different. Both intend death."

Judith Rietjens confirmed this, saying, "We can see in our study that those sub-groups where we saw an increase of continuous deep sedation - just in those sub-groups - we saw a lowering of the frequency of euthanasia."

Read related coverage:

Britain's Pathway to Euthanasia - NHS Protocols for Dehydrating Disabled Patients to Death

Elderly Woman Rescued by Family from NHS Dehydration Order


Canadacare 'Imploding'The socialists within want to take over - Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Vancouver - AARP Loses 60,000+ Members Over Pro- Obama Health Care Stance‏



Nazi Health Care

A Catholic Bishop Speaks Out Against "End of Life Care" (Germany, 1941)



[Full Feature Article]


Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen


My Beloved Brethren,


In today's Gospel we read of an unusual event: Our Saviour weeps. Yes, the Son of God sheds tears. Whoever weeps must be either in physical or mental anguish. At that time Jesus was not yet in bodily pain and yet here were tears. What depth of torment He must have felt in His heart and Soul, if He, the bravest of men, was reduced to tears. Why is He weeping? He is lamenting over Jerusalem, the holy city He loved so tenderly, the capital of His race. He is weeping over her inhabitants, over His own compatriots because they cannot foresee the judgment that is to overtake them, the punishment which His divine prescience and justice have pronounced. ‘Ah, if thou too couldst understand, above all in this day that is granted thee, the ways that can bring thee peace!’ Why did the people of Jerusalem not know it? Jesus had given them the reason a short time before. ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often have I been ready to gather thy children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; and thou didst refuse it! I your God and your King wished it, but you would have none of Me. . . .’ This is the reason for the tears of Jesus, for the tears of God. . . . Tears for the misrule, the injustice and man's willful refusal of Him and the resulting evils, which, in His divine omniscience, He foresees and which in His justice He must decree. . . . It is a fearful thing when man sets his will against the will of God, and it is because of this that Our Lord is lamenting over Jerusalem...More>>>


Sermon Delivered by Bishop Clemens August Count of Galen
August 3, 1941


[The following is from the book, Cardinal von Galen, by Rev. Heinrich Portmann, translated by R.L. Sedgwick, 1957, pp. 239-246.]
The Third Sermon, preached in the Church of St. Lambert's on August 3rd, 1941, in which the Bishop attacks the Nazi practice of euthanasia and condemns the ‘mercy killings’ taking place in his own diocese.
My Beloved Brethren,
In today's Gospel we read of an unusual event: Our Saviour weeps. Yes, the Son of God sheds tears. Whoever weeps must be either in physical or mental anguish. At that time Jesus was not yet in bodily pain and yet here were tears. What depth of torment He must have felt in His heart and Soul, if He, the bravest of men, was reduced to tears. Why is He weeping? He is lamenting over Jerusalem, the holy city He loved so tenderly, the capital of His race. He is weeping over her inhabitants, over His own compatriots because they cannot foresee the judgment that is to overtake them, the punishment which His divine prescience and justice have pronounced. ‘Ah, if thou too couldst understand, above all in this day that is granted thee, the ways that can bring thee peace!’ Why did the people of Jerusalem not know it? Jesus had given them the reason a short time before. ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often have I been ready to gather thy children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; and thou didst refuse it! I your God and your King wished it, but you would have none of Me. . . .’ This is the reason for the tears of Jesus, for the tears of God. . . . Tears for the misrule, the injustice and man's willful refusal of Him and the resulting evils, which, in His divine omniscience, He foresees and which in His justice He must decree. . . . It is a fearful thing when man sets his will against the will of God, and it is because of this that Our Lord is lamenting over Jerusalem.
My faithful brethren! In the pastoral letter drawn up by the German Hierarchy on the 26th of June at Fulda and appointed to be read in all the churches of Germany on July 6th, it is expressly stated: ‘According to Catholic doctrine, there are doubtless commandments which are not binding when obedience to them requires too great a sacrifice, but there are sacred obligations of conscience from which no one can release us and which we must fulfil even at the price of death itself. At no time, and under no circumstances whatsoever, may a man, except in war and in lawful defence, take the life of an innocent person.’
When this pastoral was read on July 6th I took the opportunity of adding this exposition:
For the past several months it has been reported that, on instructions from Berlin, patients who have been suffering for a long time from apparently incurable diseases have been forcibly removed from homes and clinics. Their relatives are later informed that the patient has died, that the body has been cremated and that the ashes may be claimed. There is little doubt that these numerous cases of unexpected death in the case of the insane are not natural, but often deliberately caused, and result from the belief that it is lawful to take away life which is unworthy of being lived.
This ghastly doctrine tries to justify the murder of blameless men and would seek to give legal sanction to the forcible killing of invalids, cripples, the incurable and the incapacitated. I have discovered that the practice here in Westphalia is to compile lists of such patients who are to be removed elsewhere as ‘unproductive citizens,’ and after a period of time put to death. This very week, the first group of these patients has been sent from the clinic of Marienthal, near Münster.
Paragraph 21 of the Code of Penal Law is still valid. It states that anyone who deliberately kills a man by a premeditated act will be executed as a murderer. It is in order to protect the murderers of these poor invalids—members of our own families—against this legal punishment, that the patients who are to be killed are transferred from their domicile to some distant institution. Some sort of disease is then given as the cause of death, but as cremation immediately follows it is impossible for either their families or the regular police to ascertain whether death was from natural causes.

I am assured that at the Ministry of the Interior and at the Ministry of Health, no attempt is made to hide the fact that a great number of the insane have already been deliberately killed and that many more will follow.
Article 139 of the Penal Code expressly lays down that anyone who knows from a reliable source of any plot against the life of a man and who does not inform the proper authorities or the intended victim, will be punished. . . .
When I was informed of the intention to remove patients from Marienthal for the purpose of putting them to death I addressed the following registered letter on July 29th to the Public Prosecutor, the Tribunal of Münster, as well as to the Head of the Münster Police:
‘I have been informed this week that a considerable number of patients from the provincial clinic of Marienthal are to be transferred as citizens alleged to be "unproductive" to the institution of Richenberg, there to be executed immediately; and that according to general opinion, this has already been carried out in the case of other patients who have been removed in like manner. Since this sort of procedure is not only contrary to moral law, both divine and natural, but is also punishable by death, according to Article 211 of the Penal Code, it is my bounden obligation in accordance with Article 139 of the same Code to inform the authorities thereof. Therefore I demand at once protection for my fellow countrymen who are threatened in this way, and from those who purpose to transfer and kill them, and I further demand to be informed of your decision.’
I have received no news up till now of any steps taken by these authorities. On July 26th I had already written and dispatched a strongly worded protest to the Provincial Administration of Westphalia which is responsible for the clinics to which these patients have been entrusted for care and treatment. My efforts were of no avail. The first batch of innocent folk have left Marienthal under sentence of death, and I am informed that no less than eight hundred cases from the institution of Waestein have now gone. And so we must await the news that these wretched defenceless patients will sooner or later lose their lives. Why? Not because they have committed crimes worthy of death, not because they have attacked guardians or nurses as to cause the latter to defend themselves with violence which would be both legitimate and even in certain cases necessary, like killing an armed enemy soldier in a righteous war.
No, these are not the reasons why these unfortunate patients are to be put to death. It is simply because that according to some doctor, or because of the decision of some committee, they have no longer a right to live because they are ‘unproductive citizens’. The opinion is that since they can no longer make money, they are obsolete machines, comparable with some old cow that can no longer give milk or some horse that has gone lame. What is the lot of unproductive machines and cattle? They are destroyed. I have no intention of stretching this comparison further. The case here is not one of machines or cattle which exist to serve men and furnish them with plenty. They may be legitimately done away with when they can no longer fulfil their function. Here we are dealing with human beings, with our neighbours, brothers and sisters, the poor and invalids . . . unproductive—perhaps! But have they, therefore, lost the right to live? Have you or I the right to exist only because we are ‘productive’? If the principle is established that unproductive human beings may be killed, then God help all those invalids who, in order to produce wealth, have given their all and sacrificed their strength of body. If all unproductive people may thus be violently eliminated, then woe betide our brave soldiers who return home, wounded, maimed or sick.
Once admit the right to kill unproductive persons . . . then none of us can be sure of his life. We shall be at the mercy of any committee that can put a man on the list of unproductives. There will be no police protection, no court to avenge the murder and inflict punishment upon the murderer. Who can have confidence in any doctor? He has but to certify his patients as unproductive and he receives the command to kill. If this dreadful doctrine is permitted and practised it is impossible to conjure up the degradation to which it will lead. Suspicion and distrust will be sown within the family itself. A curse on men and on the German people if we break the holy commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ which was given us by God on Mount Sinai with thunder and lightning, and which God our Maker imprinted on the human conscience from the beginning of time! Woe to us German people if we not only licence this heinous offence but allow it to be committed with impunity!
I will now give you a concrete example of what is taking place here. A fifty-five-year-old peasant from a country parish near Münster—I could give you his name—has been cared for in the clinic of Marienthal for some years suffering from some mental derangement. He was not hopelessly mad, in fact he could receive visitors and was always pleased to see his family. About a fortnight ago he had a visit from his wife and a soldier son who was home on leave from the front. The latter was devoted to his sick father. Their parting was sad, for they might not see each other again as the lad might fall in battle. As it happens this son will never set eyes on his father again because he is on the list of the ‘unproductives’. A member of the family who was sent to see the father at Marienthal was refused admission and was informed that the patient had been taken away on the orders of the Council of Ministers of National Defence. His whereabouts was unknown. The family would receive official notification in due course. What will this notice contain? Will it be like all the others, namely that the man is dead and that the ashes of his body will be sent on the receipt of so much money to defray expenses? And so the son who is now risking his life at the front for his German compatriots will never again see his father. These are the true facts and the names of all those concerned are available.
‘Thou shalt not kill.’ God engraved this commandment on the souls of men long before any penal code laid down punishment for murder, long before any court prosecuted and avenged homicide. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before courts or states came into existence, and plagued by his conscience he confessed, ‘Guilt like mine is too great to find forgiveness . . . and I shall wander over the earth, a fugitive; anyone I meet will slay me.’
Because of His love for us God has engraved these commandments in our hearts and has made them manifest to us. They express the need of our nature created by God. They are the unchangeable and fundamental truths of our social life grounded on reason, well pleasing to God, healthful and sacred. God, Our Father, wishes by these precepts to gather us, His children, about Him as a hen shelters her brood under her wings. If we are obedient to His commands, then we are protected and preserved against the destruction with which we are menaced, just as the chicks beneath the wings of the mother. ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . . how often have I been ready to gather thy children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings; and thou didst refuse it!’
Does history again repeat itself here in Germany, in our land of Westphalia, in our city of Münster? Where in Germany and where, here, is obedience to the precepts of God? The eighth commandment requires ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour’. How often do we see this commandment publicly and shamelessly broken? In the seventh commandment we read, ‘Thou shalt not steal’. But who can say that property is safe when our brethren, monks and nuns, are forcibly and violently despoiled of their convents, and who now protects property if it is illegally sequestered and not given back?
The sixth commandment tells us, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’. Consider the instructions and assurances laid down on the question of free love and child-bearing outside the marital law in the notorious open letter of Rudolf Hess, who has since vanished, which appeared in the Press. In this respect look at the immorality and indecency everywhere in Münster today. Our young people have little respect for the propriety of dress today. Thus is modesty, the custodian of purity, destroyed, and the way for adultery lies open.
How do we observe the fourth commandment which enjoins obedience and respect to parents and superiors? Parental authority is at a low ebb and is constantly being enfeebled by the demands made upon youth against the wishes of the parents. How can real respect and conscientious obedience to the authority of the State be maintained, to say nothing of the Divine commandments, if one is fighting against the one and only true God and His Faith?
The first three commandments have long counted for nothing in the public life of Germany and here also in Münster . . .. The Sabbath is desecrated; Holy Days of Obligation are secularized and no longer observed in the service of God. His name is made fun of, dishonoured and all too frequently blasphemed. As for the first commandment, ‘Thou shalt not have strange gods before me’, instead of the One, True, Eternal God, men have created at the dictates of their whim, their own gods to adore Nature, the State, the Nation or the Race. In the words of St. Paul, for many their god is their belly, their ease, to which all is sacrificed down to conscience and honour for the gratification of the carnal senses, for wealth and ambition. Then we are not surprised that they should claim divine privileges and seek to make themselves overlords of life and death.
‘And as He drew near, and caught sight of the city, He wept over it, and said: "Ah, if thou too couldst understand, above all in this day that is granted thee, the ways that can bring thee peace! As it is, they are hidden from thy sight. The days will come upon thee when thy enemies will fence thee round about, and encircle thee, and press thee hard on every side, and bring down in ruin both thee and thy children that are in thee, not leaving one stone of thee upon another; and all because thou didst not recognize the time of My visiting thee."’
Jesus saw only the walls and towers of the city of Jerusalem with His human eye, but with His divine prescience He saw far beyond and into the inmost heart of the city and its inhabitants. He saw its wicked obstinacy, terrible, sinful and cruel. Man, a transitory creature, was opposing his mean will to the Will of God. That is the reason why Jesus wept for this fearful sin and its inevitable punishment. God is not mocked.
Christians of Münster! Did the Son of God in His omniscience see only Jerusalem and its people? Did He weep only on their behalf? Is God the protector and Father of the Jews only? Is Israel alone in rejecting His divine truth? Are they the only people to throw off the laws of God and plunge headlong to ruin? Did not Jesus, Who sees everything, behold also our German people, our land of Westphalia and the Lower Rhine, and our city of Münster? Has He not also wept for us? For a thousand years He has instructed us and our forbears in the Faith. He has led us by His law. He has nourished us with His grace and has gathered us to Him as the hen does her brood beneath its wings. Has the all-knowing Son of God seen that in our own time He would have to pronounce on us that same dread sentence? ‘Not leaving one stone of thee upon another; and all because thou didst not recognize the time of My visiting thee.’ That would indeed be a terrible sentence.
My dearly Beloved, I trust that it is not too late. It is time that we realized today what alone can bring us peace, what alone can save us and avert the divine wrath. We must openly, and without reserve, admit our Catholicism. We must show by our actions that we will live our lives by obeying God's commandments.
Our motto must be: Death rather than sin. By pious prayer and penance we can bring down upon us all, our city and our beloved German land, His grace and forgiveness.
But those who persist in inciting the anger of God, who revile our Faith, who hate His commandments, who associate with those who alienate our young men from their religion, who rob and drive out our monks and nuns, who condemn to death our innocent brothers and sisters, our fellow human beings, we shun absolutely so as to remain undefiled by their blasphemous way of life, which would lay us open to that just punishment which God must and will inflict upon all those who, like the thankless Jerusalem, oppose their wishes to those of God.
O my God, grant to us all now on this very day, before it is too late, a true realization of the things that are for peace. O Sacred Heart of Jesus, oppressed even unto tears by the blindness and sins of men, help us by Thy grace to seek always what is pleasing to Thee and reject what is displeasing, so that we may dwell in Thy Love and find rest in our souls. Amen.



Herod Slaughters Where the Cross Does Not Come


Herod Slaughters Where the Cross Does Not Come

China, with its compulsory one child policy, is not the only country where unborn children and babies are killed. Infanticide was and is a common practice in many civilizations of yesterday and today. Christianity has always been its most radical antithesis. A book and an article document it

by Sandro Magister

ROME, August 14, 2009 – "Better ten graves than one extra birth," preaches a slogan of the one-child campaign in China. And this is also the title of the book in which Harry Wu has described and analyzed the Chinese anti-childbearing policy, made up of sterilization, forced abortion, infanticide.

The book was released in the United States, where Wu lives – in exile from China – and heads the Laogai Research Foundation. And now it has also been released in Italy, just as the parliament approved, on July 15, a motion that requires the Italian government to present to the general assembly of the United Nations a resolution against abortion as a means of population control, and for the affirmation of the right of every woman  not to be forced to abort.

In China, the obligatory one-child policy was introduced in 1979. Wu's assessment of these thirty years is expressed well in the title of his book in its Italian version: "Slaughter of innocents."

The book has been highlighted in Italy mainly by two newspapers: "Avvenire," owned by the episcopal conference, and "Il Foglio," directed by Giuliano Ferrara, a non-Catholic intellectual deeply involved in the defense of unborn life and in promoting an international moratorium on abortion.

The following article appeared in "Il Foglio" on July 29, 2009. The author takes his cue from Wu's book. But he goes farther. He shows that the slaughter of the unborn and of infants is not the sole prerogative of China over the past few decades, but has accompanied many civilizations over the span of millennia. Pagan ancient Rome had it. The China of past centuries had it. Today's India has it. The missionary expansion of Christianity has often found it it on its path.

Not only that. Abortion and infanticide are also regaining ground in the West today. They are common currency in the "new world" promoted by bioethicists like Peter Singer. They emerge in laws like the one providing for the euthanasia of children up to the age of twelve, in Holland.

The successes and failures of the expansion of Christianity are often mirrored precisely by the practice of this slaughter.



Public 'option' not optional for Obama
David Limbaugh: Regardless of language used, ultimate result is socialized health care


David LimbaughDavid Limbaugh

Public 'option' not optional for Obama

Posted: August 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

As I write this, I don't know whether President Barack Obama and his Democrats will end up pretending to abandon the public option aspect of Obamacare, but I do know that if they do, it will only be a matter of time before they resurrect it because that's where their heart is.

That's why, among other reasons, neither Blue Dog Democrats who oppose socialized medicine nor Republicans should consider compromising with left-wing Democrats to pass a bill. If they do, Obama will eventually – and probably sooner than you think – achieve his goal of nationalized health care.

Don't think I'm advocating Republican obstructionism. I would like nothing more than for conservative congressmen to quarterback real market reforms to the health care system. But if you understand liberals at all, you know that they'll never agree to market-based solutions for ideological reasons and because an expanding dependency class is their most essential power source.

Just watch conservatives propose an expansion of health savings accounts or an eradication of coverage mandates, including those prohibiting crossing state lines to buy health insurance, or tort reform or changing the tax code to eliminate the incentive for employer-provided health insurance and see what happens.

Obama will be all over state-run TV telling Americans that uncompassionate conservatives are going "Katrina" on the poor again. Democrats are the true obstructionists because they'll stop, at any cost, the only reforms that could reduce health care costs without rationing, creating waiting lines, or decreasing choice and quality of care.

If Republican legislators succumb to their political addiction to compromise for the sake of getting something passed, no matter how odious, they'll be laying out the red carpet of inevitability for socialized care. Once government gets its foot in the door, more government control is unavoidable.

But we needn't quibble over images in a crystal ball. We have Obama's statements of intent on the matter, as well as those of former DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who is back to popping off again in the foot-shooting spirit of Vice President Joe Biden.

Notwithstanding the coordinated state-run media campaign denying it, Obama has made his goal of socialized medicine clear – in his recorded comments from 2003, his presidential campaign rhetoric and his virtual endorsement of the public-option-infested House plan. Howard Dean, for his part, has been on TV hawking his health care "reform" book, unable to resist the puerile pleasure of revealing his insider knowledge.

In 2003, while belittling the United States for not providing universal health insurance despite our being "the wealthiest country in the history of the world," Obama unequivocally stated that he was "a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program." During the 2008 presidential campaign, he again endorsed the "public option." These statements were not taken out of context despite Linda Douglass' transparently lame denials.

Indeed, Obama's entire health care effort has been centered on the public option – which ultimately, by the way, would not be an option at all, but the endgame. It's the private aspects of his scheme that are illusory. That Obama has us debating whether he supports the public option – the most indispensable part of his entire agenda – instead of his fraudulent support for the private option is evidence of his consummate skills as an Alinskyite propagandist.

Every politically literate person understands that government-run health care is what we're fighting about. That's what the legitimate town hall protesters are up in arms about, and that's what the phony, ACORN-y, Astro-agitators who have been bused in by Obama are beating people up over. So spare us the insult of denying it.

Even if Obama is forced to abandon the public option temporarily, it will probably be mere semantic abandonment. The CATO Institute's Michael Tanner argues that the compromise plan being considered by six members of the Senate Finance Committee would eliminate the public option in name only. A health insurance co-op plan, he says, is just another name for government-run health insurance.

But Howard Dean revealed a more cynical Democratic strategy, which would obviate the co-op charade. Dean told MSNBC's Joe Scarborough that the Senate's removal of the public option is a ploy to get the bill through the Senate and then have the public option reinserted at the reconciliation stage, where it would only require 50 votes, not a supermajority. Dean admitted that "the president knows very well that you aren't really going to have health care reform without a public option. But he also knows he has to get this out of the Senate."

Blue Dogs and wavering Republicans better not fall for Obama's calculated canard that these nationwide grass-roots protests are contrived and make the mistake of going forward with an apparently watered-down plan that would lead to socialized health care. They'd be out on their ears in 2010. I have to believe that.
Is 'death panels' charge over the top?
Thomas Sowell: Term makes perfect sense with Ezekiel Emanuel calling the shots


Is 'death panels' charge over the top?

Posted: August 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

There was a time when rushing a thousand-page bill through Congress so fast that no one has time to read it would have provoked public outrage. But now, this has been attempted twice in the first six months of a new administration.

The fact that they got away with it before, with the "stimulus" bill, may have led them to believe that they could get away with it again.

But the first bill simply spent hundreds of billions of dollars. The current "health care" bill threatens to take life-and-death decisions out of the hands of individuals and their doctors, transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats.

People are taking that personally– as they should. Your life and death, and that of your loved ones, is as personal as it gets.

The mainstream media are again circling the wagons to protect Barack Obama, but this time it may not work. One of those front-page editorials disguised as a news article in the New York Times begins: "The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama's health care proposals would create government-sponsored 'death panels' to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks."

Nowhere? Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is "special adviser for health policy" for the Obama administration. That's nowhere? He is also co-author of an article on Americans' "over-utilization" of medical care in the June 18, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Is that nowhere?

Dr. Emanuel's article points out that Americans do not visit doctors or go into hospitals more than people in other industrialized countries. In fact we go to both places less often than people do in those other countries, which include countries with government-controlled medical care.

As the article points out, "It is more costly care, rather than high volume, that accounts for higher expenditures in the United States."

There are more Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) devices per capita in the United States, more coronary bypass operations, and Americans use more new pharmaceutical drugs created within the past five years.

Americans also have more of what the article calls "amenities" with their medical care. "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy, comfort and auxiliary services than do hospital rooms in most other countries."

In other words, it is not quantity but quality that is different – and more expensive – about American medical care. This is what Dr. Emanuel's "over-utilization" consists of.

At one time, it would have been none of Dr. Emanuel's business if your physician prescribed the latest medications for you, rather than the cheaper and obsolete medications they replaced. It would have been none of his business if you preferred to have a nice hospital room with "amenities" rather than being in an unsanitary ward with inadequate nursing care, as under the National Health Service in Britain.

The involvement of government gives Dr. Emanuel the leverage to condemn other Americans' choices– and a larger involvement of government will give him the power to force both doctors and patients to change their choices.

As for a "death panel," no politician would ever use that phrase when trying to get a piece of legislation passed. "End of life" care under the "guidance" of "some independent group" sounds so much nicer – and these are the terms President Obama used in an interview with the New York Times back on April 14.

He said, "The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out there." He added: "It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. That is why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance."

But when you select people like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to give "independent" guidance, you have already chosen a policy through your choice of advisers, who simply provide political cover. The net result can be exactly the same as if those providing that guidance were openly called "death panels."
The aristocracy's name-calling hooligans
Exclusive: Mychal Massie rips Dem leaders for double standard on value of dissent


The aristocracy's name-calling hooligans

Posted: August 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

Wanting the cacophony of anti-war rhetoric against then President Bush to continue – Nancy Pelosi told those gathered at a Jan. 1, 2006, town hall meeting: "I'm a fan of Franklin Roosevelt, because he was a disruptor and I'm a great fan of disruption" – continuing with, "There's nothing more eloquent or important to a member of Congress than the voice of his or her constituent." Where is her love and appreciation for our voices now?

She and Steny Hoyer, D-Md., viciously lament, "There is an ugly campaign under way not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation [which until a couple of days ago was titled universal health care reform], but to disrupt … civil dialogue. These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views – but of the facts themselves – drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

She reveres Roosevelt, "because he was a disruptor," but she and Hoyer call those of us voicing opposition to universal health care reform by exercising our constitutional right to be heard, "un-American." She also told illegal aliens they were "patriotic [Americans] and patriots."

The word that best represents their Erebusic duplicity is Mohock. Mohocks were aristocratic hooligans who roamed about assaulting commoners in the streets of early 18th-century London. And that is exactly what Obama and Congress are verbally doing today. The president, congressional members, and their minions and surrogates have called us mobs, and worse.

Cynthia Tucker, of the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper, and Jeanine Garofolo have called us racists. MSNBC's Ed Schultz claims that we "want Obama to get shot." The mainstream media are advancing the idea that we are "hate groups" and that our dissention is threatening Obama's safety.

Our protests have been nothing like those staged by liberal groups against President Bush. We haven't spit, thrown things, or held violent protests that endangered police forces called to quell them. There has been none of the vitriol and unrest President Bush endured.

There are aggrieved outcries over the depiction of Obama as "The Joker" – but where was the outcry when Justice Clarence Thomas and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were being savaged and satirized? They complain that we "are not telling the truth" about the proposed legislation, but the truth is, we are the ones being lied to by them. We are voicing opposition, citing page and paragraph numbers from the bill. What did Dan Rather use when he presented false documentation pursuant to President Bush's military record?

These Mohocks cannot conceive that we would be upset. They arrogantly say we don't know what is good for us. They refuse to acknowledge that their actions have united people from all parties because we are smart enough to recognize the smell of manure when we are standing downwind.

Pelosi, et al., believed the voices of dissent were sacrosanct when directed at President Bush, but when directed at them or Obama, our voices are ignorant and racist.

Bob Beckel and others argue that insurance companies and extremist factions within the Republican Party are organizing us. But Republicans in Congress have time and again proven themselves to be craven, spineless, individuals, willing to cave in or compromise on a moment's notice – rather than picking up their swords and shields in defense of our rights. Their idea of opposition is to craft a universal health care reform measure of their own.

Beckel and company know that we are not under the control of anyone. Their sleight of tongue intended to undermine our dissent, demonstrates their elitist disrespect and disdain for the common man.

We are not ignorant children – we are the people responsible for their being in office, and we pay their salaries. We don't sit in the ivory towers of congressional office buildings living on what amounts to taxpayer welfare. They condemn us while ordering eight super jets for their private use. They attempt to bully and demagogue us. They speak down to us and set their union goons upon those who disagree.

Over 50 percent of the country disapproves of this legislation. It isn't because we hate Obama and it certainly isn't because he is Kenyan-American. We oppose it because, unlike them, we've read, it and nothing dissuades us of the understanding that it is bad for America. We are vocal in our opposition because Obama and Congress seek to push aside the fact that they serve at our choosing.

We don't need them to meddle in something they can only make worse. And to that point, does anyone care to guess how many earmarks they plan to attach to the proposed bill?





Canadacare 'Imploding' | COMPLETE COVERAGE
GALLUP: Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States...

Shot link to killer nerve disease; Concern over 25 deaths...

UK SYSTEM: Woman gives birth on pavement 'after being refused ambulance'...

CANADIAN SYSTEM: Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Vancouver...

AARP Loses 60,000+ Members Over Pro- Obama Health Care Stance...

FACT CHECK: White House ignores concession on government-run plan...


Cantor: Stimulus not working as well as advertised...
- This has got to be the 'mother of all understatements politically'!

Lead Story

Internet Snitch Brigade disabled, but…Updated

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 17, 2009 02:05 PM


So, it looks like the Internet Snitch Brigade has closed up shop — and you can no longer flag yourself at

But the health care czar’s office (background here) and Obama Chicago crony Valerie Jarrett’s staff (background here) are hard at work pumping out O-care propaganda — and still collecting e-mail addresses — at the government-funded website “Reality Check.”

The White House spammers haven’t been thrown under the bus. They’re just taking a potty break.

Well, well, well

After insisting no one was receiving unsolicited e-mails from the White House, officials reversed their story Monday night and blamed outside political groups for the unwanted messages from the tech-savvy operation.

White House online director Macon Phillips said in a blog posting that independent groups—he didn’t name them—had signed-up their members to receive regular updates about Obama’s projects, priorities and speeches.

The White House had consistently denied that anyone who hadn’t sought the e-mails had received them.

“It has come to our attention that some people may have been subscribed to our e-mail lists without their knowledge—likely as a result of efforts by outside groups of all political stripes—and we regret any inconvenience caused by receiving an unexpected message,” Phillips wrote.

“We’re certainly not interested in anyone receiving e-mails from the White House who don’t want them. That’s one reason why we have never—and will never—add names from a commercial or political list to the White House list,” he wrote.

The quasi-apology came hours after the top Republican on the House’s oversight committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked the White House about its ambitious e-mail plan, which included a message from top political adviser David Axelrod urging support for a health care overhaul.

…The White House turned to its blog to respond broadly to its critics—without mentioning Issa by name.

“An ironic development is that the launch of an online program meant to provide facts about health insurance reform has itself become the target of fear-mongering and online rumors that are the tactics of choice for the defenders of the status quo,” Phillips wrote.


The White House blog post is here.

Rather than shut down the entire fiasco, they are expanding it:


Suggesting New Topics for Us to Address Through the Reality Check Site

The Reality Check website exists to inform public debate about health insurance reform – not stifle it. As the President said, “We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real.” To that end, we’ve seen incredible response from website visitors who are using the tools provided on the site to share videos and other content with friends and family.

To better understand what new misinformation is bubbling up online or in other venues, we want your suggestions about topics to address through the Reality Check site. To consolidate the process, the email address set up last week for this same purpose is now closed and all feedback should be sent through:


Moe Lane: Stop blaming the third-party advocacy organizations.

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Critic says Obamacare in trouble 
'I am not convinced calling it something else is going to satisfy concerns'
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Liberty Counsel assuring defense for DOMA 
Obama, charged with protecting law, instead wants it changed


August 17,2009


On Monday's Mark Levin Show: The Dems look disjointed, but we can't be so optimistic about what's going on - we need to keep an eye on them and make sure that their agenda doesn't go through. Mark brings up Kathleen Sebelius' comments that the administration may not insist on a government-run option regarding the healthcare plan. You need to understand that when President Obama is discussing the positives of these healthcare plans, that he is lying. If it was such a good utopian plan, then why was the amendment voted down in the House to give Congress the same system that would be imposed on the American people? Finally, Mark also brings up David Frum who said that Mark is dangerous for the whole constitutional system.
Audio: Levin Incites Violence, Worse At NJ Freedom Concert

The Other McCain
When in doubt, blame Mark Levin

American Spectator
Frum Attacks Levin, Silent on Moyers

Wall Street Journal
We Don't Spend Enough on Health Care

Carpe Diem Blog
We Should Spend More, Not Less, On Health Care; Resilient Health Care Sector is Engine of Growth

Electric City Weblog
Is ObamaCare Constitutional?

The Atlantic
Administration Official: "Sebelius Misspoke."
Public Option Is Not Dead Yet
New Column: Public Option Not Optional for Obama

Washington Times
Video - Rep. Massa: I will vote against the interests of my district

USA Today
Poll: 57% don't see stimulus working
Obama Misread His Mandate



Don't Fall for Democrat Head Fake, Obamacare Still Must Be Defeated


Liberals want socialized medicine. They won't give up.



AT: Student Challenges Obama on Plan
Rasmussen: 54% Say Passing No Health
Care Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan

Taranto: Palin Wins on Death Panels

We're Winning, Obama's Losing; State-Run Media Calls Us Racists


Obama is failing and they blame that failure on race.


The Bottom Line on "Death Panels"


It's the logical conclusion if gov't tries to cut costs.


Obama's Credibility Problem


Obama's "gift" is gone. Nobody trusts him anymore.


Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page


» Hurricane Center Tracks Bunch of Thunderstorms
» Cash for Clunkers Dealers Waiting for Payment
» Hope & Change: Asian Car Companies Clean Up

» Obama's Snitch E-Mail Op Moves to New Location
Story #4: Obama's Snitch E-Mail Op Moves to New Location

RUSH: Okay, is officially dead.  This was the snitch website.  A third-party was sending out all those Axelrod e-mails.  Now, that's possible, right?  It's possible a third party could have been spamming them, it's possible but it's not likely with the security techniques that they have up there.  So they're passing this off on probably some spammer over in the Greek isles on his yacht.  I'll tell you who it is.  The guy that did the Joker posters of Obama out here in Los Angeles probably is who is behind the spamming.  But, anyway, is no longer in service.  You get a failure message when you try to snitch on somebody.  The e-mail address you just sent a message to no longer in service, we are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform at they haven't really gotten rid of the snitch website.  They're just moving it to different place. 

» Wake Up, America! ChiComs on Oil-Buying Binge
» Scientific American: Will Electric Cars Wreck the Grid?
» What? Obama Shifts Focus to Renting, Not Owning













FLASH - 29 species getting federal protection but human beings in their mothers' wombs not one of them!
29 species getting federal protection?

Rare beach-dwelling plant in Yellowstone National Park among those listed
--Associated Press

Obama follows through, files to repeal DOMA

Jim Brown and Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 8/18/2009 6:20:00 AM


President Barack H. ObamaA conservative black pastor in Washington, DC, is expressing outrage over President Obama's decision to file a legal brief in support of repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

A new brief filed yesterday by Justice Department lawyer Scott Simpson declares that the Obama administration "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy," and "believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress." In a written statement, President Obama states that he has "long held that DOMA prevents LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered] couples from being granted equal rights and benefits." (See earlier story) In fact, as a U.S. senator representing IllinoisObama stated his support for "the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act."

Story continues below ...


What will be the MOST LIKELY political fallout from Barack Obama's decision

to push for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act?

Vote in our poll


Bishop JacksonBishop Harry Jackson, Jr., chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, says the Obama administration's brief is "an assault on biblical, God-ordained marriage."
"Evidently the president signaled to us during the Stonewall celebration, when he had all of the gay activists into the White House and made presentations of what he would do for them, that he values this constituency and he is responding to their urging to accelerate the process of redefining marriage," he points out. "So, I think it is very hypocritical on his part. I'm very outraged."
Jackson is joined in indignation by Brian Raum of the 
Alliance Defense Fund, who is disappointed the Justice Department is challenging the law which was passed in 1996.
"It's really troubling that the federal government has taken a position that federal policy is bad policy," says the attorney. "Federal DOMA was passed overwhelmingly and represents the prevailing view of the people of the United States that marriage is between a man and a woman and that's the optimal environment for raising kids," Raum contends. (
listen to audio)
Brian Raum (ADF)According to Raum, DOMA also provides protection for states. "Well, federal DOMA makes it clear that states have the right to regulate marriage within their borders and that they cannot be forced to recognize same-sex 'marriages' from some other states," Raum explains. "If federal DOMA were to be struck down, that whole area of the law would be in jeopardy."
Jackson says as African-Americans, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder both should know that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, and that opposition to same-sex marriage is not the moral equivalent of racism.

States would be 'sitting ducks'
At the same time the administration has filed papers challenging DOMA, attorneys with the Justice Department are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a homosexual California couple who seek the same objective. Mat Staver, founder of 
Liberty Counsel, believes the DOJ may be playing political games in arguing against that case.
The government said in its legal brief to the court on Monday that the Justice Department will defend the 1996 DOMA but feels it is unconstitutionally discriminatory against homosexuals. Staver is eager to take a role alongside the Justice Department in defending DOMA because of what is at stake. (
listen to audio)
Matt Staver"We're asking the court to allow us to intervene on behalf of the Campaign for California Families so that we can literally, aggressively defend this case -- not just be a figurehead, like we anticipate the Department of Justice may ultimately be in this case," says Staver.
DOMA declares that marriage is between one man and one woman. Another provision in the law provides that states are not forced to accept homosexual marriages performed in other states where it is legal. But what if DOMA were declared unconstitutional?
"Then the individual states are sort of sitting ducks," Staver explains. "What would happen is same-sex marriage would rush over the dam of the various borders of the states, so to speak, like a floodwater rushing over the top of a dam, and [it] flood all the other states."
That is despite the fact that 30 states have constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. The full faith and credit clause of the U.S. constitution would override any state law to the contrary -- even if it is a voter-approved amendment to a state constitution.

Obama Admin, Sebelius Say Public Option Still Part of Pro-Abortion Health Care
Washington, DC ( -- The Obama administration and his health secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, have backtracked and now both say the public option is a part of the government-run health care plan they want Congress to approve. The two appeared to back down from supporting it over the weekend but have reversed course. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that, yes, President Obama still thinks a public option ought to be part of the discussion. He insisted in a fiery press briefing that there has been no change. Gibbs insisted that the president has been “consistently dull” in saying that while he prefers the public option. Gibbs presented CNN's Ed Henry with a transcript of the president's town hall meeting in Colorado over the weekend and said the transcript proved Sebelius had not gone off message. When asked, however, how the White House’s refusal to demand a public option might be construed by Congressional Democrats, Gibbs responded: “I'm not a Democratic member of Congress.” Meanwhile, Sebelius is backpedaling furiously from statements she made Sunday regarding Obama's plans for government-run health care. On Sunday, Sebelius stunned many Americans when she said that a public option was "not the essential element" of health care reform. Today, Sebelius' message at a Medicare conference was different. "Here's the bottom line: Absolutely nothing has changed. We continue to support the public option," she said. Full story at

ACTION: Contact members of the House and Senate and urge strong support for any amendment to exclude abortion and rationing from their health care bills. Ask them to oppose any health care bill that allows abortion funding or rationing. Call 202-224-3121 or go to and for specific contact information.
Health Care Bills Could Result in 300-600K More Abortions, Scrap Pro-Life Laws

by Maria Vitale
August 18, 2009 Note: Maria Vitale is an opinion columnist for She is the Public Relations Director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation and Vitale has written and reported for various broadcast and print media outlets, including National Public Radio, CBS Radio, and AP Radio.

So-called health care reform could become the worst thing to happen to abortion rates since Roe v. Wade.

When you hear the phrase “health care reform,” you might think of cutting costs, eliminating arcane rules, and ensuring coverage for the hard-to-insure. Raising abortion rates would not seem to be a logical part of the equation.
Yet, consider this quote from one of the primary experts in abortion law, National Right to Life Legislative Director Douglas Johnson: “The Kennedy bill would result in the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.”

That’s because the Senate proposal would result in federally mandates coverage of abortion in nearly all health plans. The feds would also mandate recruitment of abortionists by local health networks—a scary thought. Abortion would be federally funded on a gargantuan scale.
We know from experience that taxpayer funding of abortion results in more abortions. It’s been estimated that the health care reform plans now on the table could increase abortions by 300,000 to 600,000 a year because of federal subsidies for abortion. The more lives that are sacrificed, the more trauma for families, the more pain for women, the more costs for society. So much for the “cost-cutting” aspects of health care reform.
The Senate plan could also mean the nullification of many state abortion laws. This is a critical point.
For instance, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the abortion rate was cut in half after the landmark Abortion Control Act went into effect. This ground-breaking law ensured parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting periods for abortion. Each life lost to abortion is undoubtedly a tragedy, yet, Pennsylvania has been able to save legions of its citizens through its protective abortion law.
Yet, such a law could be wiped out under the guise of health care reform. This is an insult to the citizens of the state, who, through their elected representatives, placed common sense curbs on abortion. If, for no other reason, in the interests of states’ rights, the Kennedy bill should be nixed.
Our founding fathers knew it was a mistake to place too much power in the hands of the federal government. Federal power comes from the will of the people, and it should not be abused, even in the name of health care reform. National public opinion polls consistently have shown that people don’t want their tax dollars to pay for abortions.
Abortion needs to be specifically excluded from health care reform, or else our money could be used to support the taking of innocent human lives and the emotional wounding of thousands of American women.
With health care reform, we are in the fight of our lives—and so are our preborn brothers and sisters.



Houston Energy Workers Rally Against Climate Bill...

Energy workers rally against climate plan

By TOM FOWLER Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

Aug. 18, 2009, 12:24PM


Local energy workers jammed a downtown Houston theater today to protest climate change legislation that the U.S. Senate will take up in the coming weeks.


The Energy Citizens rally, promoted by some major energy companies and business organizations as well as the Greater Houston Partnership, is the first of several such events planned in 19 states in the coming weeks.

About 3,500 people, or 1,500 more than expected, filed into the facility, many donning yellow T-shirts that were being handed out that read "I'm an energy citizen." Houston Astros owner Drayton McLane Jr. was the keynote speaker.

Organizers of the event, billed as a dialogue on energy and the environment, told the Chronicle on Monday that legislation the U.S. House passed last spring will destroy millions of U.S. jobs and raise costs without reducing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for climate change.

“It's a dangerous piece of legislation,” said James Hackett, chairman and CEO of Anadarko Energy, which is busing employees to the event.

Hackett said he supports reducing greenhouse emissions and developing alternative sources of fuel.

“But I do think there's a virtual reality that's being portrayed to most American citizens about how quickly we get there and how we get there,” Hackett said.

The rally is scheduled for 12:30 p.m. at the Verizon Wireless Theater downtown, with doors open at 11:30.

The climate change bill the House passed earlier this year sets a steadily decreasing cap on emissions from factories, power plants and other industrial sources and lets companies trade any excess emissions allowances. The price of those emissions allowances would most likely be passed on to consumers.

The measure also would set up a system for creating extra allowances, called offsets, through other projects that reduce emissions, and would include incentives for renewable energy sources and home and business energy efficiency.

But opponents say the bill won't reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it doesn't secure promises from developing nations, like China and India, to put controls on their growing emissions.

It also makes no mention of encouraging nuclear power generation, which some rally organizers believe will be key to meeting the country's electricity needs without creating more greenhouse gases, and doesn't discuss a role for natural gas, which typically has lower carbon emissions than other fossil fuels.

Opponents also say the cost of the legislation is ill-timed in a weak economy.

A study released by the National Association of Manufacturers last week says the law would cost 1.8 million to 2.4 million jobs by 2030 and would cost each U.S. household up to $1,248 a year by 2030.

Other estimates of annual household costs have differed — $83 per year according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration; $88-$140 according to the Environmental Protection Agency; and $175 a year projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, both major party nominees — Republican John McCain and Democratic winner Barack Obama — said they favored a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the scheduled speakers at today's event, National Black Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Harry Alford, said his organization has been on the record against such a bill since 1996 when it opposed the Kyoto Treaty that led to the emissions trading system now operating in Europe.

Chevron has invited Houston employees and retirees to participate in the event, and will provide transportation, so they can be part of the policy discussion, said spokesman Scott Walker in an e-mail.

“Chevron supports a national climate change program that is transparent, promotes energy efficiency and conservation measures, treats all participants fairly and protects our economy and energy security,” he said.

Shell Oil has been outspoken in support of climate change legislation, and is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has supported a cap and trade program.

Shell is “neither encouraging nor discouraging participation in the rally,” spokesman Bill Tanner said.

The Greater Houston Partnership is “still in the process of formulating an official position on the cap and trade plan in the energy legislation,” according to a release concerning the event, but is encouraging dialogue because of the legislation's potential effect on the region.


Subject: AFA of PA Action Alert: Gambling Expansion; Obama Works to Repeal DOMA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:44:53 -0400





August 18, 2009




1.)    Governor Continues Pushing for Gambling Expansion

2.)   President Obama Files for Revocation of Defense of Marriage Act




1.)    Even as the budget impasse begins its seventh week Governor Ed Rendell continues demanding gambling expansion be a part of the final bill.  He wants table games in all Pennsylvania casinos and video poker machines in local bars and restaurants.  This past Friday the Pennsylvania House heard hours of testimony in favor of gambling expansion from casino CEOs and gambling lobbyists.  But some how they neglected to invite even one to testify in opposition to gambling expansion!


2.)   Late yesterday President Obama’s Justice Department filed legal paperwork challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act. (DOMA).  Click here to read the AFA of PA news release issued earlier today for more details.


News Release
For Immediate Release:  August 18, 2009
Contact:  Diane Gramley  1.814.271.9078 or 1.814.437.5355


Obama Continues to Payback Homosexual Activists Who Voted For Him


(Harrisburg President Barack Obama continues his move away from the American people as his administration has filed to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act saying it discriminates against homosexuals.  Too many listened to his campaign rhetoric and not enough questions were asked as Obama promised America he supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage.  Many organizations, including the American Family Association of Pennsylvania (AFA of PA), encouraged Americans to look beyond the words of the candidate and look at his actions.


“Senator Barack Obama of Illinois stated that he supported complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. This was ignored during the campaign.  Now President Barack Obama has asked his Justice Department to take the steps to see that this repeal takes place. This is really no surprise as Obama issued a proclamation designating June as ‘gay pride’ month, gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to homosexual activist Harvey Milk and arranged numerous audiences with homosexual activist groups in recent weeks,” noted Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA. 


A new brief filed yesterday by Justice Department lawyer Scott Simpson declares that the Obama administration "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy," and "believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress." In a written statement, President Obama states that he has "long held that DOMA prevents LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered] couples from being granted equal rights and benefits."


The Justice Department seems to be divided against itself as at the same time the administration has filed papers challenging DOMA, attorneys with the Justice Department are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a homosexual California couple who seek the same objective.  Obama is trying to stay above the fray by saying one thing in public while asking his Justice Department to support a repeal of DOMA.


The first section of DOMA defines marriage for the purpose of federal law as one man and one woman. DOMA reaffirms that each state’s decision on marriage is protected: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”


“If the Defense of Marriage Act is repealed that will have ripple affects across the nation as states will no longer have protection from being forced to recognize same-sex ‘marriages’ from other states where it is legal.  Even though the voters in 30 states have passed Marriage Protection Amendments banning same-sex marriage that will all be negated if the administration is successful in repealing DOMA.   Each day it is becoming more apparent just how radical President Obama’s homosexual agenda is,” Gramley commented.



Action Steps:


1.)   If you don’t think gambling expansion is a good idea for Pennsylvania, please contact your State Senator and State Representative and ask them to oppose any attempt to expand gambling.  Click here and key in your zip code in the upper right hand corner for contact information. 


2.)   If the federal Defense of Marriage Act is revoked, every state in the union will be required to legalize same-sex marriage – even those 30 that have passed Marriage Protection Amendments!  If this concerns you, please contact President Obama, Senators Specter and Casey and your Congressman. Since there has been some controversy about the White House sending unsolicited e-mail defending the health ‘care’ bill, perhaps calling the Comment Line would be better than an e-mail.  It is 202-456-1111.


In His Service,


Diane Gramley

Please consider making a donation to the AFA of PA to help us carry on the
fight for decency, life, family and marriage.

   American Family Focus on PA Issues -- 30 minute radio program
                               Diane Gramley’s guest last week was Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for
                               Military Readiness addressing Congressman Patrick Murphy (PA-8) taking over as lead
                               sponsor of the bill to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”    Every concerned American needs
                               to understand who Patrick Murphy really is!

Listen to the Weekly Update.

All content copyright of
American Family Association of PA
P.O. Box 1048
Franklin, PA   16323

Phone:  (814) 271.9078







White House wages war on marriage act 
If DOMA declared unconstitutional, states would be 'sitting ducks'


WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Liberty Counsel assuring defense for DOMA 
Obama, charged with protecting law, instead wants it changed



VIDEO: LaBarbera Speaks Out on Obama Marriage Hypocrisy, Kevin Jennings and GLSEN ‘Fistgate’ Scandal

August 18th, 2009

WARNING: graphic descriptions documenting “gay” corruption of youth

Peter LaBarbera, president and founder of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, opens AFTAH’s June 17, 2009 press conference on President Obama’s radical homosexual agenda. LaBarbera exposes Obama’s hypocrisy on traditional marriage, and plays the infamous “Fistgate” audiotape revealing how — at a “gay youth” event — underage girls and boys were exposed to graphic verbal “how-to” lessons on “fisting” and other homosexual perversions. (Fistgate occurred at a “queer” youth panel as part of a 2000 conference sponsored by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network.) GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings was appointed by President Obama to head up the Dep’t of Education’s “Safe and Drug-Free Schools” agency. A DVD of the AFTAH press conference in Chicago is available for $20 postpaid. Designate “Obama press conference” with your online donation or send your check to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

Some Congressmen MIA — Is Yours?

Lawmakers accused of hiding during August recess prepare to take the heat at town hall forums across U.S.

Health Care Backlash Hits AARP | FULL COVERAGE
Insurance Co-ops Raise Questions, Few Answers
Heat for Retreat Over Government-Run Option

FOX FORUM: Health Care Whoppers - Narcissistic Megalomaniacal Pathological Lying Obama's Health Care Whoppers




Immigration Reform that Respects Taxpayers and the Law


President Obama suggested that after his health care and cap-and-tax plans have gone through the Congressional vetting process, his next target is immigration reform. He aims to have draft legislation ready some time this year. Our immigration system is not without its flaws, but the rumored inclusion of an amnesty, or “pathway to citizenship” provision is not the way to solve America’s immigration problems.

The President believes that we need, “an orderly process for people to come in,” but that we also need to give “an opportunity for those who are already in the United States to be able to achieve a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to live in the shadows”. If the President follows through on his promise, such an amnesty plan could:


·                  Erode the rule of law. Roughly 12 million illegal immigrants live in America. To legalize them and turn a blind eye to their disregard for our immigration laws would be unfair to those immigrants who came here legally. It would also set a dangerous precedent that if you break American law, you can be rewarded with the valuable gift of U.S. citizenship.


·                  Put yet another burden on taxpayers. As of 2004, the average low-skilled immigrant household received an average of $30,160 in direct benefits, means-tested benefits (welfare), education, and population-based services. However, on average low-skilled immigrant households only pay $10,573 in taxes. That comes to an astounding price of $19,588 of fiscal debt per low-skilled immigrant household. Adding this onto the backs of taxpayers after potentially forcing them to pay for health care reform and a cap-and-trade scheme is fiscally irresponsible.



Instead, America needs an immigration policy that focuses on programs that work, and provides a coordinated approach among the state, local, and federal authorities. Real reform needs to:


·                  Enforce current immigration and workplace law. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano must ensure that internal enforcement efforts continue. This includes E-Verify and Social Security No-Match, workplace raids that help to decrease incentives for both illegal immigrants and employers, as well as 287(g) programs, which help state and local law enforcement enforce immigration laws.


·                  Safeguard the southern border. The porous southern border makes illegal entry into the United States an easier and more attractive option than the legal avenues. The physical and technological fence is only part of the solution. More border agents are needed, more technology needs to be deployed, and federal authorities need to cooperate and collaborate more with state and local law enforcement.



·                  Promote good governance and economic development in Latin America. Aiding Latin American countries in their economic development will greatly reduce the pressure on their citizens to come to the U.S. illegally. Furthermore, in Mexico it is vital that the U.S. help the Mexican government combat the growing drug cartel problem that threatens to destabilize that nation.


·                  Enhance legal worker programs and reform Citizenship and Immigration Services. The U.S. needs to provide legal avenues that meet the needs of employers and immigrants and provide a better alternative than illegal immigration. USCIS needs to be a more efficient and effective partner in providing the immigration services and enforcement that the nation needs. Strengthen citizenship. The federal government should support programs that promote civics and history education among immigrants and encourage English language proficiency in order to foster political integration and strengthen commitment to our common principles.



Immigration reform should uphold the rule of law, respect the needs of the economy, and provide a legal means by which to come to the U.S.