Citizen Media reporting at its finest

FreeRepublic.com 

Posted on Friday, March 23, 2012 by ottbmare

Today tens of thousands of Americans gathered in 140 cities to peacefully protest the "HHS Mandate". This recent mandate of the US Department of Health and Human Services requires religious institutions and faithful employers to provide insurance coverage of contraceptive drugs and devices, sterilization services, and abortion-producing drugs, even if this coverage is anathema to them. The mandate levies crushing fines on any institution that attempts to opt out of paying for such  coverage. Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims are all strongly opposed to providing coverage of such services, and since HHS and the Obama Administration have been absolutely adamant that they would not change this provision of Obamacare, these protests were organized. 

In DC, the protest was held directly in front of HHS headquarters, where presumably Kathleen Sibelius and her minions could not be unaware of it. Organizers anticipated a few hundred demonstrators, but counted 1300 before they began the rally. In the unseasonably pleasant spring sunshine, families gathered with babies and older children; nuns, priests, and monks came to watch and pray; determined individuals brought large American flags, smaller signs, and splendid banners. Blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Asians were represented, and both Catholics and Protestants came to show support. With their signage, their prayers, and their massed voices, all proclaimed one message: We will not comply!

The principal speaker was Presbyterian minister Patrick Mahoney, the rally captain and organizer for DC. What a motivating, high-energy speaker he is! 

Other speakers included-- 
--the splendid, electrifying Star Parker, a former welfare mother who stopped living a dissolute life and became a Christian speaker, broadcaster, and writer
--Dr Milton Lee, a Korean pastor who had flown in from Seoul to thank America for her friendship
--a truly electrifying black preacher who had some serious warnings for our stubborn, unChristian president about facing Christ when he dies
--the beautiful Lila Rose, who spoke against abortion from the perspective of one who had survived an attempt to abort her
--Father Marcel Guarnizo, a holy priest, a conservative, and a brilliant scholar.

I want particularly to note the concluding remarks of Father Marcel. Many of you will have heard of the recent controversy about him, when his gentle and quiet refusal to give the elements of Communion to an openly practicing lesbian created an international media firestorm. His quietly adamant position about this finally caused the gay-sympathizing Archdiocese of Washington to punish him, withdrawing his faculty to operate as a priest in the DC area. He has been in seclusion since the incident at the end of February, and this rally was his first public appearance since then. It was a risk, for his absolute dedication to the cause of Christ has brought unbelievable hatred as well as grave threats from liberals and gays.

Nevertheless, this courageous little man would not allow threats to silence him. He gave a closely-reasoned speech which made no appeal to emotion, but discussed  our Constitution and the First Amendment. The crowd was spellbound as he created his case: that this matter is not just about healthcare, or contraception, or even abortion, but about the existence of the United States as a Constitutional republic. For in depriving us of our religious freedom and compelling us to subsidize a culture of death, the Obama Administration removes every freedom, in the manner of a totalitarian government. If this stands, he says, we have resigned all our freedoms and will be living under a totalitarian government.

In addition to the 15 Catholic bishops scheduled to speak at Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom locations, countless other influential speakers from all walks of life will also be addressing rallies throughout the country this Friday, March 23.

The speakers at the more than 130 Rally sites represent a wide array of backgrounds and professions, including members of Congress, physicians, college presidents, pastors, radio hosts, law professors, heads of organizations, publishers, religious sisters, pregnancy resource directors, and rabbis.

The New York City Rally will feature several big names, including Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and pastoral associate of Priests for Life; Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Msgr. Philip Reilly, and Mother Mary Agnes Donovan, Superior General of the Sisters of Life.

Continue reading ...

_ Equal Protection for Posterity

LifeSiteNews.com

by Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON - After being deluged with complaints from outraged religious groups, Obama’s health department has dug in its heels, saying its decision to force employers to provide abortifacient birth control drugs will continue as planned - although faith-based groups will be given a year reprieve. In response, U.S. Catholic bishops have not minced words, vowing to fight the order as “literally unconscionable.” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced Friday that faith-based entities like hospitals and universities will have until August 1, 2013 to provide employees with free birth control as part of their insurance packages. The mandate will also force such groups to pay for sterilizations and, because the FDA has approved abortifacient drugs such as Ella as “contraception.”

The mandate is being implemented as part of the new health care legislation that was passed in March 2010 despite vigorous opposition from U.S. Catholic bishops, who called it dangerously open to being used as a means of spreading abortion.

Read this story at LifeSiteNews.com ...

_ stevedeace.com

By Rebekah Maxwell

Never have I tried harder to like a candidate than I have tried to like Ron Paul. He has revived a great spirit in the grassroots, promoting some much-needed (but so seldom found) common sense in representative governance. His kooky, contrarian, Constitution-first, get-government-outta-my-hair persona has many a disenchanted voter from my generation ready to reboot the system and take the country from 1984 to 1776.

But then, he says things like this…

“So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.”

Ron Paul – “Liberty Defined”

Now, one of the most often-heard arguments in the case for Ron Paul is his personal pro-life testimony. I concur that the statement of a doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies is powerful. But how has Paul used that influence?  To advocate for regulation, not abolition.

His argument that the law will not change a corrupt society is very true. Only a spiritual awakening to a resurrected Savior can truly revive a culture of death. But Dr. Paul, you and I also agree that it is within the government’s place to weigh in, and influence the question.

Whether handled at the state level, or the federal level, it is still calling on government to enforce a moral standard. That standard must establish that it is wrong for a pregnant citizen to deprive her unborn child of life, or it is not. Most states have, since the Roe v. Wade opinion, shown remarkable incompetence and unwillingness to take responsibility for abortion within their borders, so I highly doubt they have the fortitude to do so now.

In your own state of Texas, almost 87,000 women had abortions in 2008. That’s in spite of regulating laws, like a third-trimester ban, parental notification, conscientious objector status for doctors, and a 24-hour waiting period.

But let us assume that you’re right, Dr. Paul, that states will rule best on this question.  Why then, do you advocate for states to sanction some killing? Isn’t this the perfect place to follow your pro-life principles and urge the states to stop the killing?

The hypothetical state law you provide as an example would “treat” these “very early pregnancies” with the “day after pill”. Now, Dr. Paul, I would normally defer to your medical expertise here. But I confess a bit of confusion over what pill we’re discussing.

The Mayo Clinic’s website lists the “morning-after pill” as a type of emergency birth control, so let’s settle on that for a moment. This is a variety of treatment that either blocks fertilization or keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. They take pains to distinguish this from RU-486, a blatant abortive, by saying “If you’re already pregnant when you take the morning-after pill, the treatment will be ineffective and won’t harm the developing baby. The abortion pill terminates an established pregnancy.”

Dr. Paul, you called it a pregnancy. Twice.

In the above passage from your book, you say these pills are ok for states to establish as treatment for “very early pregnancies.” If the Mayo Clinic is right, and the morning-after pill will not abort an existing baby, then do you suggest, Dr. Paul, that rape victims (or really any pregnant woman) should be allowed to use other means to “treat” these early pregnancies?

I know it may seem that I’m arguing over mere words…but this is exactly what happens in state legislatures time and time again, when the goal becomes to regulate evil instead of abolish it. Once you say it’s morally acceptable for a certain woman to abort/terminate/kill her child, but not another woman, you’ve already lost the battle. You’re then just arguing the terms of surrender.  It appears Dr. Paul’s goal is not the same as mine: we ought not strive to have “fewer abortions,” but to protect the lives of all Americans…born or unborn.

But my biggest disappointment, Dr. Paul, is that you called it a choice.

Is murder legal because it’s difficult to “police”? No.
Is the state released from their duty to punish murder because it keeps happening?  No.

More importantly, is murder illegal because the law says so? Or is it murder against our law because God’s law says so? I believe each person should be free to make our own “moral choice”…but not if that person infringes upon the rights of others. That’s where my choice ends and inherent rights begin.

Either every person has the God-given right to life and liberty, or they do not. Either the Constitution guarantees those rights or it does not.  If those rights come only from man, and not from God, then you Dr. Paul, can have no argument when men make laws that take away our liberties…since those “rights” are not inalienable, but just the arbitrary desires of men.

If we instead acknowledge that all mankind is created equal with rights that no government of men can justly take away, we must align our man-made laws to protect what God has given to us. That choice, Dr. Paul, seems crystal clear to me.

Over the weekend, I received an email addressed to me and the other two candidates who are on the ballot for State Delegate in my district.  Without sharing whether he was for or against abortion, he asked all three of us to articulate our position on the issue.

My reply (though somewhat lengthy) may be of interest to those who are keeping tabs on my campaign.

-- -- -- -- --

Michael,

Thank you for the email.

I happen to take a firm stance on this issue, and though it may require a lengthy reply, I think it's important to let you know "why" I take such a firm stance.

Among the issues that matter most to the future of our commonwealth, this is one that certainly deserves our immediate attention.

The right to life is a natural right that cannot be abridged—   not by state or federal legislatures, not by state or federal judiciaries, not by governors, not by presidents.  In fact, even if all branches of government were to work in tandem, writing bogus laws and issuing phony edicts (as they have indeed been doing for the past 40 years), they could never "lawfully" effectuate the nullification of this unalienable right.

In his 1962 inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy did a good job of articulating the mechanics of this principle when he said, "The world is very different now, for man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish . . . all forms of human life."

He went on to declare, " . . . the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—  [such as] the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

In 1983, on the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade, President Ronald Reagan issued a lengthy statement acknowledging his belief in the fact that those in the womb have "a God-given right to be protected by the law—  the same right we have."

Believe it or not, our founding fathers dealt with this subject pretty thoroughly as well.

It was stated in The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) that individuals are forbidden from depriving their "posterity" (and this would certainly include their posterity in the womb) "the enjoyment of life and liberty", even by virtue of legislative enactments.

And as our forebears went through the process of ratifying this document, where the original draft read that all descendants of mankind are "born" with the natural endowment of their God-given rights, it will be instructive to note that the Virginia Convention struck out the word "born".

If that word had been left in, the abortion people could perhaps argue (as some do nevertheless) that our founding generation did not mean for the rights of life and liberty to be applied to life in the womb—  or any other form of human life which is not fully developed, for that matter.

If that word had remained in, perhaps it could be argued, as Judge Blackmun seemed to suggest, that unless and until such life emerges from the womb, is cut from its mother's umbilical cord, and is certified by the Federal judiciary as being "up to snuff", we are dealing with a "lesser" life form that our founders had deliberately excluded from the purview of law.

What we find, however, is an example of the great foresight and moral competence of the Virginia Convention.  What did they do?  They struck out the word "born" and substituted it with the phrase "by nature", so that the declaration would read, "all men are by nature equally free", removing the hint of any suggestion that this declaration of rights was in any way meant to exclude our posterity in the womb.

Thomas Jefferson, in The Declaration of Independence (1776), identified life as an "inalienable", "self-evident", God-given right—  a right that could not be given away or taken away.  And using the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the proceedings of the Virginia Convention as a source of inspiration, he too struck out the word "born", substituting it with the word "created", removing even the very hint that this national declaration of our inalienable rights was somehow meant to exclude or neglect the rights of our posterity in the womb, as some might otherwise have suggested. 

The governing guidelines of The Federal Constitution (1787) – which were enumerated in The Preamble – declare the defining purposes for its own enactment.  One of the reasons given was this:  To secure the blessings of liberty "to ourselves and our posterity".  From this, it will be instructive to note that the Constitution not only recognizes the God-given rights of our posterity, but it places those rights on an equal level with our own.

Incidentally, the term "blessings of liberty" was first etched into our founding charters by George Mason, who attached a specific meaning to it.  His definition was meant to represent a brief articulation of our most basic human rights under natural law.  And where the Federal Constitution was established, in part, to secure the blessings of liberty to "our posterity", we may safely conclude from Mason that the "blessings" clause was intended to canonize the underlying fact that we cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest our posterity "the enjoyment of life and liberty" or the means of pursuing and obtaining "happiness and safety".  In essence, George Mason had codified our country's moral basis for truth and justice, by declaring that these four particular elements of freedom represented our most basic human rights—  our universal claim (as human beings) to life, liberty, happiness, and safety.

I could continue on in great detail, expounding on the intentions of The Bill of Rights [The Fifth Amendment] (1791) and The Fourteenth Amendment [Section 1] (1868).  Suffice it to say, the Virginia General Assembly of 1970 acted in direct violation of constitutional law when it passed a bill to liberalize Virginia's abortion statute.  And Governor Linwood Holton acted in direct violation of constitutional law when he signed it.  Likewise, when the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), it did so in direct violation of constitutional law.  Each one of these three forces acted in defiance, not only of our Constitution, but also every other founding charter and legislative enactment that demonstrated the intent to ensure a proper and settled understanding, a deep appreciation, and a corporate recognition of natural law.  By what right did Judge Blackmun deny the due enforcement of these rights?  By no right, whatsoever, except that he was determined to neglect every existing mandate that explicitly prohibited him from doing so.

All that I have addressed to this point is simply meant to articulate the basis for my belief that we must declare our independence from the political parties by pressing for the abolishment of abortion.  An untold measure of moral influence is there for us to express and affirm at the ballot-box.  If ordinary citizens would simply take a stand and exert some of that influence abortion, same-sex marriage, neo-secularism, euthanasia, and other ruthless, state-imposed initiatives, might be kept in their proper dominion, and restrained from encroaching upon the free people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

As Delegate of the 44th House District, I would concentrate on restoring the constitutional rights of those in the womb.

Here is a quick summary of what my campaign advocates in relation to abortion and the restoration of equal justice:

  (1)  No abortions.  /  No exemptions.

  (2)  Petition our elected officials to yield to the preeminence of natural law, as they are required under the framework of our founding charters.

  (3)  Work to develop a pro-life coalition advocating "Equal Protection for Posterity" within the Virginia General Assembly.

  (4)  Introduce a bill to re-establish "Equal Protection for Posterity" within the framework of Virginia Statutory Law.

  (5)  Introduce a bill calling for an "Equal Protection for Posterity" amendment to The Virginia Constitution, in order to re-assert and properly ensure the continued recognition our basic human rights into the future.

  (6)  Introduce a bill to bring back the "Equal Justice" clause of the oath of office, which was removed by the Virginia Convention of 1901-02, in an act of political despotism.

  (7)  Introduce a bill to celebrate the efforts of Governor Charles T. O'Ferrall who is said to have worked vigorously during his tenure (in the late 19th Century) to stamp out the practice of lynching.

  (8)  Introduce a bill to publicly repudiate the despotic act of the Virginia Convention of 1901-02, in its refusal to accept and to recognize the civil and political equality of all men before the law, and for its corruptive decision to remove the "Equal Justice" clause from the oath of office. 

  (9)  Introduce a bill to publicly repudiate the despotic act of the Virginia General Assembly of 1970, when it voted to liberalize Virginia's abortion statute, in direct violation of the mandates given in our founding charters.

  (10)  Introduce a bill to publicly repudiate the despotic act of Governor Linwood Holton, when he signed a bill (in 1970) to liberalize Virginia's abortion statute, in direct violation of the mandates given in our founding charters.

The bottom line:  We must return to an understanding of justice that recognizes the equity of all persons before the law, and that seeks to render equal and exact justice to all.

Now more than ever, it seems clear to me that the political parties have made it their aim to force us all down a path of moral relativism.  And so that we might feel we've had a say in the matter, they have set before us the phony choice of whether to be "marched" down this path on account of the willful and deliberate action of a Democrat, or successfully "dragged" down it on account of the passive and neglectful inaction of a Republican.  Either way, we are still being forced down the wrong path, with little hope of escape.  For my part, I'm here to offer voters a chance to break this cycle, if they would simply reach out and take the opportunity.

I appreciate the fact that you're interested in getting to know me and the other candidates.  And the simple fact that you've included me in this query tells me that you are someone who's willing to place "principle" ahead of "party".

Whenever I'm reminded that there are voters like you out there, I'm deeply encouraged.

I want good people like you by my side on Election Day.


Joseph A. Glean,  Independent Candidate

Prospective Delegate for Virginia's 44th House District