Obama and Michelle Celebrate the Canonization of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II

29 04 2014

Obama and Michelle Celebrate the Canonization of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II

Today, Michelle and I join Catholics around the world in celebrating the canonization of Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II.

The work and witness of both Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II shaped not only the Catholic Church but the world. Pope John XXIII articulated powerful roles for the Church in the cause of global peace and justice, and by convening the Second Vatican Council he revolutionized not only aspects of worship but the Catholic Church’s relationship with other faith communities. Pope John Paul II helped inspire the Solidarity movement in Poland, a movement that spread and eventually helped to end communism in Eastern Europe, and he spoke out forcefully against apartheid in South Africa and genocide in Rwanda. He had a special rapport with young people, drawing many of them to the Church’s work and teachings.

We celebrate these Saints and the leadership of His Holiness Pope Francis, and we look forward to continuing to work with Pope Francis and Catholics around the world to advance peace and justice for all people.
—-President Barack Obama, The White House

Obama-Care The Worst Thing To Happen Since Slavery By Dr Ben Carson

12 10 2013

Obama-Care The Worst Thing To Happen Since Slavery By Dr Ben Carson

Dr. Ben Carson didn’t mince words: Obamacare is “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.”
Dr. Carson made the declaration about President Obama’s sweeping health care mandate Friday during a speech at the Values Voter Summit.
PHOTOS: Civil disobedience: Angry Americans flout shutdown rules
“It is slavery because it aims to make all of us subservient to the government,” he said. “It was never about health care. It was about control.”
Dr. Carson further compared the new health care reform to policies envisioned by Vladimir Lenin, one of the fathers of socialism and communism.
“Socialized medicine is the keystone in the establishment of a socialist state,” Dr. Carson told the audience of some 2,000 supporters of traditional values.
Such a comment may seem paranoid to some, he said, “but I would say if you know anything about history, how could you not bring it up?”
When people in the executive and legislative branch don’t have to participate, but everybody else has to, “that’s not America, that’s Russia,” he added.



Homosexual declaration “contradicts” our commitment to freedom, says World Body, stuns Gay lobby

20 07 2013

Gay declaration “contradicts”  our commitment to freedom, says U.S Congress man

U.S Congress man, Chris Smith, during the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe (OSCE) helped shoot down a resolution recognizing a controversial declaration on homosexuality by a vote of 24 to 3. Even lawmakers from countries that are usually friendly to homosexual groups deserted them.

The non-binding declaration, known as the Yogyakarta Principles, declares comprehensive special new rights for individuals who identify as lesbian, homosexual, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). The 29 principles were prepared in 2006 by activists, academics and former unelected officials of international bodies.

Proponents insist the principles are authoritative interpretations of existing international law, and have asked international organizations to endorse them. They have had varying success. Getting the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on board would have been a significant victory because representatives at its meetings are elected officials from the legislative branches of OSCE member states.

Having garnered the signatures of 31 co-sponsors, the Belgian sponsoring the resolution was confident the resolution could pass. Moreover, the Council of Europe, composed of the same countries as the OSCE, recognized some of the same principles in a 2010 resolution.

But the initiative turned into a nightmare when even lawmakers from countries that side with homosexual groups did not support it. Only three representatives voted in favor of the resolution after it was discussed. Chief among its opponents, and surprisingly to many, was the United States representative.

When the resolution came up for debate, the atmosphere in the room became tense.

U.S. Congressman Chris Smith was the first to speak and said the Yogyakarta Principles “contradict” OSCE commitments to religious freedom and freedom of speech. He mentioned conflicts with the principles and the tenets of major religions, as well as binding international law and pointed out that governments never negotiated the principles.

The statement from the congressman highlights the conflict between the legislative and executive branch in the United States. The Obama administration has declared LGBT rights a priority for the United States. Recent public statements by U.S. President Barack Obama in African countries confirmed that position. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly gathers representatives of the legislature, not the executive branches of government.

Smith was not alone in criticizing the Yogyakarta Principles.

The Polish representative motioned to remove the resolution from the agenda and not even debate it. She made a surprisingly forceful intervention, saying the principles contradicted Poland’s constitution, and no international body has ever defined the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”.

Lawmakers from countries that grant special new rights for individuals who identify as LGBT, like Italy, which grants homosexual couples special status through civil unions, also spoke against the resolution.

Promoting partisan advocacy would “diminish” the authority of OSCE according to the Italian representative. He said the OSCE recognizes the rights of all individuals to be free of discrimination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. But he observed that it is inappropriate for the OSCE to even discuss the merits of the Yogyakarta Principles, because the principles go beyond the accepted normative framework for human rights embraced by OSCE states — echoing legal experts who say the Yogyakarta Principles do not accurately reflect international law.

Representatives from Russia and Armenia also made comments opposing the resolution. No one offered words in support of the resolution, not even Belgium.

A previous version of this article on July 18 did not mention that it was the “Parliamentary Assembly” of the OSCE that rejected the resolution. This  rare and commendable display of courage and good sense by a World  body could mark the beginning of an effective resistance by other members of the United Nation  to pushy  gay lobbies.

Written by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.


Mr. President, if you bless killing 333000 people, no thank you..Matt Birk

8 06 2013

Mr. President, if you bless killing 333000 people, no thank you..Matt Birk

Retired Ravens center Matt Birk spoke out Thursday morning on Minnesota’s KFAN about his reason for declining an invitation from President Barack Obama to be at the White House during the team’s visit a day earlier.

Birk, a six-time Pro Bowler who was on the Ravens’ 2013 Super Bowl team, said he has “great respect for the office of the Presidency” but decided against going with the team on Wednesday as part of an annual NFL tradition for Super Bowl winners. Birk said he based his decision on a comment the president recently made in which he applauded Planned Parenthood, a leading health care provider of reproductive and sexual health:

“I wasn’t there. I would say this, I would say that I have great respect for the office of the Presidency but about five or six weeks ago, our president made a comment in a speech and he said, ‘God bless Planned Parenthood…’
Planned Parenthood performs about 330,000 abortions a year. I am Catholic, I am active in the Pro-Life movement and I just felt like I couldn’t deal with that. I couldn’t endorse that in any way…I’m very confused by [the President’s] statement. For God to bless a place where they’re ending 330,000 lives a year? I just chose not to attend.”
Obama spoke to Planned Parenthood at the end of April, saying the organization has “a president who’s going to be right there with you,” and then ended his speech with the comments that Birk took issue with.


Obama to restore science to its rightful place if it supports his agenda

2 06 2013

Obama: To restore science to its rightful place if it supports my agenda

t a recent press conference proposing the launch of a federally funded brain-mapping initiative, President Barack Obama embraced the title of “scientist-in-chief” bestowed on him in an introduction by Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health. “Given my grades in physics, I’m not sure [I’m] deserving,” said the president — before going on to note that “I hold science in proper esteem, so maybe that gives me a little credit.” This was an echo of his inaugural promise to “restore science to its rightful place.” Four years into his administration, with another four years to go, we are now well positioned to revisit that promise — to reconsider its meaning and to see whether the scientist-in-chief has lived up to the pledge even on its own terms.

Politicians, journalists, and academics regularly throw around the terms “pro-science” and “anti-science” to denigrate their opponents and to advance their own views. This rhetoric is often effective because the American people hold science and scientists in great regard: for decades, surveys show, Americans have had more confidence in the leadership of the scientific and medical communities than in that of lawmakers, organized religion, the press, and most other institutions. So posing as a defender of science and attacking its supposed enemies is an easy way to score political points; the president’s inaugural promise is an instance of this political strategy, as we noted in these pages four years ago.

Americans’ high esteem for the scientific enterprise is rooted in our gratitude for the advances in medicine and technology that it makes possible, as well as for the insights into the wonders of nature — from the structure of the atom to the history of the cosmos — that science alone can reveal. Unfortunately, the good standing of science is all too often abused by those who invoke its authority as a way to shut down policy debates. The usefulness of new technologies and the promise of new medical treatments are routinely exaggerated to deflect needed consideration of the moral and social controversies arising from innovation. Policymakers simplistically speak of increasing government spending on scientific research and ramping up the role of science, technology, engineering, and math in our educational system as solutions to our economic woes. And scientific knowledge, which can be an essential tool for policymaking, is frequently used as a cover for political and ideological agendas.

An examination of President Obama’s first four years in office shows that, unsurprisingly, his administration has followed the advice of science only insofar as it has supported or justified his political agenda.

Since the Second World War, the U.S. government has invested a great deal of money — over $4.5 trillion in constant 2005 dollars — on scientific research and development, following a bipartisan consensus that scientific knowledge is an important foundation for economic growth, rising standards of living, and national security. But in much of his rhetoric and policymaking, President Obama has twisted that rationale, treating science as a symbol of the need for more government spending.

For instance, at the April 2013 press conference announcing his proposed brain-mapping initiative, the president repeated a claim that he had made in his most recent State of the Union address: “every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy — every dollar.” This figure can be traced to a study published by the research firm Battelle Technology Partnership Practice. But the economic modeling used to generate that figure has been criticized for including as benefits of the Human Genome Project some things that were actually costs, such as the salaries of the scientists and technicians involved in the project. The study also unrealistically claimed that economic activity across the entire genomics industry could be counted as “induced impacts” of the Human Genome Project — including, again, expenditures that might be better considered costs than benefits.

Few would dispute that basic scientific research of the sort performed in the Human Genome Project — or, for that matter, the proposed brain-mapping project — can be a worthy way for the government to spend taxpayer dollars. But exaggerating the promise of these endeavors can undermine the value of science in the long run, when overhyped projects fail to deliver. (As one commentator told the journal Nature, the lack of noticeable practical benefits flowing from the vaunted Human Genome Project in the decade-plus since its completion has led some of the lawmakers who supported the $3.8 billion project to wonder, “where are the goodies?”) But President Obama still seems unafraid to overpromise, claiming of the new brain project that the knowledge of the human mind it seeks not only “could be” but “will be transformative.”

The president’s expression of unqualified high hopes for this project fits his rhetorical pattern of invoking science to justify his broader political agenda — in this case, his aim of increasing the government’s role in the economy. During the same press conference, he paused twice to criticize the “arbitrary, across-the-board cuts” imposed by the recent budget sequestration, and explicitly tied the proposed brain-mapping project to “other grand challenges like making solar energy as cheap as coal or making electric vehicles as affordable as the ones that run on gas.” The talk of “grand challenges” has been another hallmark of the Obama administration’s approach to science and technology funding, although it seems to have resulted less in serious scientific accomplishments than in cronyism and corporate welfare — the kind of politically motivated venture capitalism that led to the disastrous loan guarantees for green-energy companies like the solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra.

The Obama administration’s handling of two prominent issues relating to energy and the environment — the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and the Keystone XL pipeline — merit particular attention. These cases highlight the administration’s lack of transparency and demonstrate the limited extent to which scientific advice can be expected to influence controversial policy decisions, while revealing the difficulty of sticking to the president’s 2009 promise to “base our public policies on the soundest science.”

Yucca Mountain was the site designated by federal law for the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel, a project that faced persistent opposition from both Nevadans and anti-nuclear activists ever since the site was first suggested in the mid-1980s. Despite widespread scientific consensus that underground storage is the safest approach for disposing of nuclear waste, and billions of dollars and decades of research demonstrating the safety of the Yucca facility, the Obama administration used every tactic it could devise to halt the project. The administration even went so far as to start dismantling the project while still legally required to continue it.

Meanwhile, the Keystone XL pipeline controversy also demonstrates the limits of using science to dictate policy. An exhaustive study of Keystone’s potential environmental impact by the State Department found that the construction and operation of the pipeline would cause “no significant impacts” to nearby habitats and communities. But opposition to Keystone is not only based on concerns over the environmental impact of the pipeline itself, but also on the threat of climate change posed by the use of petroleum from the Canadian oil sands. In a 2011 open letter, several activists described the pipeline as a “1,500-mile fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent,” quoting climate scientist James Hansen’s claim that Canadian oil sands must be “left in the ground” if we are to have any chance of “stabiliz[ing] earth’s climate.”

Of course, no matter how much President Obama — or any other president faced with the choice of whether to build the pipeline — might want to base his decision only on the “soundest science,” the decision is an unavoidably political one. Some scientists report that the pipeline is a comparatively safe way to transport oil, but others contend, not incompatibly, that building and using the pipeline will contribute devastatingly to climate change. Meanwhile, the existence of the global marketplace suggests that if the pipeline is not built, Canada will export its oil-sands resources to some other country. And all this must be weighed against the U.S. economy’s ever-growing energy needs. Politics cannot be reduced to science or avoided by invoking the authority of science.

The Obama administration may not have distorted scientific evidence to suit its political agenda in the Yucca and Keystone cases — indeed, the State Department study on Keystone has drawn fire from the president’s environmentalist supporters for not condemning the pipeline. But the administration has not acted in accordance with the president’s 2009 statement that “promoting science isn’t just about providing resources” but about “listening to what [scientists] tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.” Instead, when science has confronted the administration with its own inconvenient truths, the administration has pursued a strategy of misdirection, delay, and inaction. We may disagree with the administration’s policy decisions in these cases and we certainly disapprove of its political tactics, but casting these issues as conflicts between science and politics would be a mistake — the same sort of mistake made by those critics who wrongly accused the Bush administration of waging a “war on science.”

In spite of the claims made by our scientist-in-chief and his allies that they, unlike their conservative political opponents, hold science in the “proper esteem,” the politicization of science is in many ways a greater temptation for the left than for conservatives. The Obama administration’s simplistic equation of government-funded scientific research with innovation appeals to the left’s impulse for economic collectivism; in his infamous “you didn’t build that” campaign speech, President Obama said that it was the government “investing” in “basic science” that “keeps us as a leading-edge economy.” (Never mind that the private sector spends twice as much on R&D as the federal government.) And the conceit of putting science in its “rightful place” above politics, although drawing from many motivations, also neatly matches the progressive desire to shift the policy process away from democratic oversight and toward the centralized control of government agencies which can implement technocratic reforms.

Science is a vital part of American democracy and rightly enjoys a special position of trust and, on questions about the natural world, of epistemic authority. But this authority is based in no small part on the perception that science is an objective, disinterested means of pursuing the truth. Elevating science to a position of political authority is bound to change that perception, and indeed to corrupt the scientific spirit of disinterested objectivity. At this halfway mark in his presidency, we continue to disagree with President Obama’s implication that restoring science to its “rightful place” means putting it above politics. Rather, preserving the rightful place of science means remembering that its indispensable contribution to the crafting of policy must be balanced by the contributions of ethics, culture, economics, religion, and other sources of wisdom, and that science, like the rest of society, must be governed democratically.

— Adam Keiper and Brendan P. Foht
This article was first published in The New Atlantis

President Obama, Margaret Sanger would be proud of you. Abraham Lincoln would not.

30 04 2013

In the spring of 1983, President Ronald Reagan did something highly unusual for a sitting president. He wrote and published an unsolicited article in The Human Life Review, titled “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.” In it, he denounced the “raw judicial power” by which the Supreme Court had dispossessed the unborn of their inalienable right to life in the Roe v. Wade decision, and mourned the some 15 million lives that had been snuffed out by abortion by that time.

On April 26, 2013, President Barack Obama did something equally extraordinary. He became the first president to address a Planned Parenthood conference. Planned Parenthood is the foremost provider of abortions in the United States. In his speech, Mr Obama celebrated the “quality healthcare to women” that this organization purportedly provides without once mentioning the service for which they are best known – abortion.

President Obama also lauded the organization for its near century of service since “the first health clinic of what later would become Planned Parenthood opened its doors to women in Brooklyn.” Curiously, he neglected to say much else about the origins of the group, except that “for nearly a century now, one core principle has guided everything all of you do – that women should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own health. It’s a simple principle.”

Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The real founding principle behind the group from which Planned Parenthood sprang was purely eugenicist, deriving from Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.” Perhaps it is best to let founder Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) speak in her own words at length (so as to avoid their being taken out of context).

In Women and the New Race (1920), she wrote that

“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.”

The purpose in promoting birth control, she added in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921, was “to create a race of thoroughbreds.” How can this be done? Among other things, she explained in Women and the New Race, “[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

The only way to do this was to have fewer children from the “unfit.” Who were the unfit? One can guess the answer from where Margaret Sanger placed her clinics – in poor neighborhoods. Who lived there? Blacks, East Europeans, and shanty Irish, among whom were my grandparents. The solution to poverty was to get rid of the poor. In case anyone missed the point, she said, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Of course, Mr Obama did not come from a large family, but one wonders from the circumstances of his birth what Margaret Sanger would have thought about bringing the unborn Obama to term? One can only be grateful that his mother did not consider herself part of a breeding program to create a “new race.” However, it is puzzling that he chose to celebrate a group whose origins are so explicitly steeped in eugenics.

This makes all the more remarkable the kind of criticism he leveled at the new restrictions recently placed on abortions by several states, including Kansas and North Dakota. President Obama said that “after decades of progress, there’s still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century.” But Planned Parenthood’s ideas turn back the clock far earlier than the 1950s. In fact, they go back almost a full century before that and have their genesis in Darwin’s work, the full title of which is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. These ideas, with a little help from Frederick Nietzsche, reached their fruition in Nazi Germany. read more http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/reagan_versus_obama_on_abortion

%d bloggers like this: