NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE: THE WAYWARD WEIGH IN - Victory Or DEFEAT? - Some Disturbing Observations On Rome That Are Getting Increasingly Hard To Ignore Given That The Institutional Church Of Late Is De Facto Encouraging The Communist Takeover Of America By Radical Marxist Socialists Under Comrade Obama
The problematic nature of pandering to politicians with
half-measures while announcing to pro-life troops that a victory has been
achieved is not a new malady. It has been a relatively consistent pattern
woven into National Right to Life Committee politics for many years
now. Having said that, the problem with what is currently being
said about the Stupak Amendment to the Pelosicare
bill is the most egregious I have seen in my 40 years of pro-life activism.
“As NRLC’s congressional scorecard for the 111th Congress will clearly explain, a vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment only be construed as a position-defining vote in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds, and a second federal program that will provide government subsidies to private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. NRLC regards this as the most important House roll call on federal funding of abortion since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997. If you do not wish to go on record in support of creating major new federal programs that will both fund abortions directly and subsidize private abortion coverage, please vote for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. NRLC will regard a “present” vote as equivalent to a negative vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.”
While it could appear that NRLC is threatening members of
Congress with a bad score if they vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, the fact is that the
amendment itself is halfhearted and fraught with problems. And if one
examines the actual text of H. R. 3962, the Pelosicare
bill, one finds the following:
The aftermath of the Stupak amendment vote hasn’t been pretty.
I’ve read countless comments on Twitter and Facebook
from pro-life people who are livid at one side or the other.
Ertelt’s description of the
pro-abortion forces is, of course, correct. NARAL Pro-Choice America has described the Stupak
Amendment as “extreme anti-choice politics.” Of course it’s riled; not a
single baby should be protected by law, according to its strategic plan. And
it’s united with its fellow pro-deathers, including
Planned Parenthood, which claims the Stupak Amendment is
an “unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if
enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today.”
Some Disturbing Observations On
Have you noticed that
the apologies for the litany of incredible statements coming from
NEWS: October 29, 2009
Bird’s Eye View of the
Atila Sinke Guimarães
ENCYCLICAL TO FOSTER THE REVOLUTION - Even though it is late, I arrive to
analyze Caritas in veritate. It is an
encyclical that was first announced to be a criticism of Capitalism. Then,
with the crisis of the Western economy that triggered in September 2008, the
Pope prudently waited to see what direction events would take. Finally, the
document was released in early July with a corrected target. This time it was
said to be “about the financial crisis,” not directly against Capitalism.
Actually, it is an effort to foster the
To manage the global economy … to bring about integral
disarmament, food security and peace, to guarantee the protection of the
environment and to regulate migration, for all this, there is urgent need
of a true world political authority …
The processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open
up the unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a
world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an
increase of poverty and inequality …
In this transition from assistance by mercy, to
assistance obligated by law lies the essential difference between Catholic
doctrine and Socialism. In the text above, Pope Ratzinger
promotes the same socialist thesis supported by his conciliar
predecessors and opposes the traditional teaching on charity, which he
pejoratively calls philanthropy.
· The world’s wealth is growing in absolute terms, but inequalities are on the increase. … The scandal of glaring inequalities continues (n. 22).
· Through the systemic increase of social inequality, both within a single country and between the populations of different countries … not only does social cohesion suffer … but so does the economy, through the progressive erosion of ‘social capital’ (n. 32)
When explaining what integral development is, Benedict
proposes an ideal not much different from that of Socialism and Communism. It
is presented in typical progressivist language:
Business management cannot concern itself only with the
interests of the proprietors, but must also assume responsibility for all the
other stakeholders who contribute to the life of the business: the workers, the clients, the
suppliers of various elements of production, the community of reference (n.
· Paul VI had an articulated vision of development. He understood the term to indicate the goal of rescuing peoples, first and foremost from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy. From the economic point of view this meant their active participation, on equal terms, in the international economic process … (n. 21).
· Government and international bodies can then lose sight of the objectivity and ‘inviolability’ of rights. … Such way of thinking and acting compromises the authority of international bodies, especially in the eyes of those countries most in need of development. Indeed, the latter demand that the international community take up the duty of helping them to be ‘artisans of their own destiny’, that is, to take up duties of their own. The sharing of reciprocal duties is a more powerful incentive to action than the mere assertion of rights (n. 43).
encyclical Benedict hands another banner to Liberation Theology or other progressivist movements to continue their promotion of
class struggle. He not only endorses the efforts of agrarian reform to give
the land to the one who works it, but he establishes a new human right: “the
right to water.” All men in a country and all the peoples on earth would have
an equal right to water… He goes even further: He determines that a “new
conscience” must be established in the minds of all men to accept these
rights. Here are his words:
1: “The supreme objective of the
The REAL Catholic Church Exists In Traditional Enclaves Which Are The Modern Catacombs As The Institutional Church Is In Apostasy - Examining The Mystery Of God’s Church