The Manhattan Declaration

The secular "progressives" are pounding away with their 16-inch guns, trying to sink a movement that has been energized by "The Manhattan Declaration." If you've never heard of it, the Manhattan Declaration is a written statement by representatives of various Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Christian churches.

"We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians" says the Declaration, "who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them."

What are these "fundamental truths about justice and the common good? They are:

• The sanctity of life
• The dignity of marriage as a union of a man and a woman
• The rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Today these beliefs are under attack by a small, but powerful cabal of leftist politicians who are promulgating laws that violate them. These threats include:

• Healthcare "reform" laws that might seek to compel Catholic-affiliated hospitals to perform abortions if they wish to receive public payments for medical procedures
• Laws, or worse than that, judicial fiats, that legalize gay marriage
• Secular education curricula that countermand the religious beliefs taught by Evangelical Christians in their homes

The Manhattan Declaration draws a religious line in the sand as did the Declaration of Independence did politically 233 years ago. 

To the secular humanists, this is like flashing the crucifix to Dracula. "This declaration simply perpetuates the fallacy that equality and religious liberty are incompatible, and that every step toward fairness for the lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender community is another burden on religious people." So harrumphed an organization called the Human Rights Campaign.

Well, I've got news for the Human Rights Campaign. You may think that my religious beliefs are "fallacy," but I sure as hell don't.  And if what you call "equality" requires that a small, Catholic college in North Carolina pay for abortions, which the Obama administration has said it must, than they your idea of equality is incompatible with Catholic belief. And if you think it's fair for Catholic, Orthodox or Evangelical people to be silenced as you you create a mythical "protected class" called "GLBT" then you've just gotten a wake-up call from the Manhattan Declaration.

The irony is that groups like the Human Rights Campaign have no problem bending over backwards making sure that terrorists have copies of the Koran in their prison cells, God is vanquished from our public schools once and for all, and the part of Santa Claus each year is played by Father Christmas. But let traditional orthodoxy try and assert its First Amendment rights and immediately it is tarred as insensitive, homophobic, and misogynist. 

So, what does the Manhattan Declaration say about those of us who hold traditional Christian beliefs and values? Like Peter Finch's character Howard Beale in the film classic Network, it says we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more.

Just thought you might like to know.

A Thanksgiving Proclamation Nov. 26

Thanksgiving Proclamation

[New York, 3 October 1789]

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Just thought you might like to know!

Happy Thanksgiving!

Democrats Buy Healthcare Vote; $100M is Mary Landrieu's Price for Cloture

So the Democrats will have their debate on healthcare deform. Among Democrats. If this were a strict party-line vote, then higher taxes, more expensive premiums and expansion of the fraud-riddled Medicaid program would already be the law of the land. 

But the leftist cabal that has taken over the U.S. government has to first convince the "centrist" Democrats to go along with the hijacking of healthcare. Centrist must be political speak for high-priced, certainly not high morals or high principles. Because the Democratic leadership was able to buy off Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu with a promise of $100 million for additional Medicaid assistance for her state. (Well, actually not specifically for Louisiana. The aid is available to"certain states recovering from a disaster." So what if Louisiana is the only one that fits that bill?)

In this, Sen. Landrieu was no different than Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), who took a tenth round dive over on the House side a couple of weeks ago, also for the promise of more pork for his district. At least you can say that Mr. Cao was consistent with the will of the voters in his district, more than 90% of whom are Democrats. The district was formerly represented by William "Cold Cash" Jefferson, now on his way to serving a dozen years in a federal slammer for various improprieties. No matter how Rep. Cao votes on healthcare, there's a good chance he's a once-and-done congressmen after 2010.

I'll leave the gratuitous jokes about Louisiana politics aside for a moment. But when you see the votes of Sens. Landrieu, Nelson and Lincoln, who make grandiloquent speeches about this bad bill, and then fall in to the conga line behind the Senate leadership, it makes you wonder about the lack of integrity in our legislative system.

People like Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln--and even Joseph Cao--get elected to the House or Senate, and the spend their entire terms working on their re-election. They take stands on nothing, attempt to please everybody and spend their entire terms meeting with well heeled corporations and unions so they can stuff their silk re-election purses with a speed that would make the bride at an Italian wedding blush. 

Here's the problem in a nutshell: If only 27% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, then why do incumbents get reelected at a better than 90% clip? Answer me that.

The answer is that Congress governs so poorly because its members spend their entire careers perpetuating themselves as a permanent political class, and we let it happen. 

Believe me, I'm not a throw-the-bums-out populist. If we did that you'd have 535 congressmen walking around the Capitol with maps, and the entire government in the hands of 20-something aides and interns. 

But we've got to get better production and better quality out of Congress. If not, then we get trillion dollar deficits, unfunded mandates, special interest giveaways, legalized bribes and this ugly, misshapen bill known as healthcare reform. 

Just thought you might like to know.

 

Stratfor Weighs in on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial

Controversy continues to swirl over the Obama administration's decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court rather than before a military tribunal.

Private security and intelligence service Stratfor has an interesting, nonpartisan take on the dilemma in its November 16 edition. While we all understand that KSM fits neither in the category of a military combatant nor that of your garden variety  criminal, George Friedman helps analyze the riddle in Deciphering the Mohammed Trial. 

To do so, he compares KSM, not to the German sub spies of World War II, as most analysts have, but to the franc-tireurs of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. The franc-tireurs were, literally, "French snipers"--irregulars without uniforms who picked off Prussian soldiers and then melted back into the French civilian population. This resulted in civilian casualties blamed on the franc-tireurs. To be covered by the Geneva Conventions, a partisan must at least bear an insignia of his cause which neither the franc-tireurs nor KSM did.

This ambiguity captures KSM, says Friedman. He is not an enemy combatant because he fought under the banner of no country. Neither is he a criminal. Criminal punishment is handed out after the fact. But the purpose of trying and attempting to punish KSM is more preventive-to keep him from planning more terror attacks.

Friedman, however, does make two chilling observations about the Obama decision. The first involves the CIA, which has been under attack from the administration and Congress since last January. If the U.S. can claim that KSM is a common criminal because he planned the 9/11 covert attack, what is to stop some foreign government from indicting and attempting to bring to trial the Director of Central Intelligence for some covert action carried out in a foreign country.?

All nations engage in spycraft. If a spy is captured, he is not covered by the Geneva Conventions but by whatever passes for rule of law in that country. But should CIA director and Obama pal Leon Panetta be indicted by, say, Iran, would Pres. Obama, who has declared himself an international citizen, feel himself compelled to turn Director Panetta over to the mullahs? 

The second  unintended consequence of the president's decision is the specter that the federal court sets KSM free. For starters, is there any way this man can get a fair trial blocks from the site of ground zero? Are there any potential jurors who don't know anyone affected by 9/11? This is pre-trial publicity on steroids. Forget a change of venue. 

The reality is that KSM may indeed be found not guilty, despite what looks to the untrained eye as overwhelming evidence. Friedman says, "(Attorney General Eric) Holder has opened up an extraordinarily complex can of worms with this decision. As U.S. attorney general, he has committed himself to proving Mohammed’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt while guaranteeing that his constitutional rights (for a non-U.S. citizen captured and held outside the United States under extraordinary circumstances by individuals not trained as law enforcement personnel, no less) are protected. It is Holder’s duty to ensure Mohammed’s prosecution, conviction and fair treatment under the law. It is hard to see how he can."

There is no good way out of this for the United States. George Bush understood this. That's why he let KSM cool his heels by the seashore for the last three years. But this is one more example of President Obama making a decision based on abstract theory and politics, and not on the consequences of his decision or the reality of the dangerous world we live in.

Just thought you might like to know.

Mainstream Media Fails to Connect the Dots; Polls Show Americans Have Lost Confidence in the President

President Obama continues his globetrotting adventures, trying to look--well, presidential. Meanwhile, back at home, opinion polls have started to show a disturbing trend, if you are an Obama supporter. The President continues to make healthcare the tall poll in his tent, which continues to shift precipitously to the left and away from most Americans. This has quickly eroded the base of good feelings and confidence with which voters swept him into office a year ago.  Check the numbers:

• A November CNN poll shows that 47% of Americans say the top issue facing the country is not healthcare; it's the economy. In fact, only 17% of those polled said that healthcare was their main concern.
• Following the Nov. 7 House of Representatives healthcare vote 54% of those polled said they opposed the plan. Only 45% of respondents said they favored it, according to a Rasmussen poll. 
• An NBC/Wall Street Journal p0ll taken from Oct. 22 through Oct. 29 showed that the President's personal magnetism is fading. When it comes to being honest and straight with the American people, he's dropped to 33%. Two out of every three people don't think he's being honest with us.
• In the same poll his rating for being firm and decisive--witness the waffling on Afghanistan, the constant empty warnings to Iran, and his boogie out of town last week to let Attorney General Holder take the heat for the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court--has slipped to 27%. Three-quarters of those polled don't see him as a decisive leader. 
• Most damning for the President is that a Washington Post/ABC News poll from Oct. 15-18 showed that for the first time a majority of Americans don't believe he can make the right decisions to lead the country.

So while Pres. Obama's acolytes in the media refuse to report such an aggregation of polling, the fact is that the President has lost the support of independents, the largest voting "bloc" in the country and the group most important in his historic election. So said pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Douglas Schoen in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece.

The President continues to blame President Bush for the country's woes, especially the economy, but even that act is wearing thin with Americans. An October 26 Rasmussen poll showed that two-thirds of Americans aren't drinking the "Our-stimulus-saved-or-created-a-million-jobs" Kool-Aid. 

The percentage of people who think that Pres. Obama "inherited" the current economic crisis from Pres. Bush has dropped steadily over the year, according to Rasmussen. Over the last nine months that number has dropped from 84% to 63%. Today the number of people who blame Pres. Bush for the money mess we're in is about the same as those who now blame the current president. The more the President repeats his "It's Bush's Fault" mantra, the less that people believe it. 

Here's the kicker for the President, the one polling question that shows that his support is a mile wide and an inch deep, as they say in Texas: By a margin of 62% to 27%, majority respondents in an Oct. 26 Rasmussen poll said they trust themselves over the President to make the economic decisions necessary to get back on the road to economic recovery.

To a socialist-leaning Barack Obama, who believes that central planning will solve everything because the government is the answer to all questions, this is a death knell. For ten months this blog has attempted to show that his administration, because of its insular, elite, salon mentality, does not understand the American people and the American character. It sees itself as the savior of a nation that can save itself, thank you very much. Apparently two-thirds of the respondents see things our way.

Barack Obama will never understand that it was rugged individualism and a frontier spirit that settled this country, created great institutions of government, education and commerce to sustain it, and developed a font of goodness that other countries are quick to criticize and quicker still to drink from.  

When it comes to figuring out how to solve this nation's problems, the polls say Barack Obama's on the wrong side of history. We, the people, are on the other side. The right side.

Just thought you might like to know.

Obama on Death Panels: A Lie, Plain and Simple

This is a follow up to the Friday the 13th post. I thought nothing could be scarier than posting about government-run healthcare on a Friday the 13th. I was wrong.

The Senate's healthcare deform bill is about to drop this week. In it the upper chamber lays out its plan for rationing healthcare. The Senate bill calls for creation of a 15 member panel appointed by the president to decide how much to spend on healthcare each year and how to spend it. Fifteen unelected bureaucrats who serve at the sole discretion of this president. No advice or consent by the Senate. And they called the Bush presidency imperial.

The Wall Street Journal has a good take on this plan in its Monday lead editorial. It quotes Alain Enthoven, noted healthcare economist, as calling this type of "global" budgeting "bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill."

And kill it will. Washington state has a similar body that oversees budgeting for its Medicaid program, its public employees, and the inmates in its correctional system. Known by its innocuous-sounding technocratic name--the Health Technology Assessment--this group has in the past banned:

• arthroscopic surgery for arthritis sufferers
• spinal stimulation
• MRIs of the abdomen, pelvis or breasts in cases where cancer is suspected

This panel may also ban ultrasounds in pregnancies on the basis of cost, even though the panel admits they are highly effective. So reports The Journal.

Democrats complained loudly when conservatives called such administrative takeovers of healthcare "death panels." Pres. Obama called such talk "a lie, plain and simple." But's hard to see that they are anything but. And get ready: They're on the way, if the Democrats prevail in this fight.

Just thought you might like to know.

H.R. 3962: Rationing and Bureaucratic Control

The healthcare bill (H.R. 3962) that barely passed the House of Representatives Nov. 7 contains a clause that should concern all Americans—especially the elderly. On pages 25-26, Title 1, Section 101, subsection (h)(2) the bill clearly states: “If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.”

If you examine this you know all you need to know about what the current administration wants to do about your healthcare:

The law would direct the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to do one of three things if the healthcare program goes over budget, which it certainly will because government spending always does. The secretary’s first option is to reduce your benefits. The government routinely does this now with its other well managed medical care programs, Medicaid and Medicare. Goodbye routine exams. The second option is to increase your premiums. Goodbye promise of affordable healthcare. The last option is the most ghastly: establishing waiting lists. This is political speak for the R-word: rationing. Goodbye, kidney transplant.

There are two things that should scare the hell out of all Americans in this one section of the Bill. First, that the government will be the sole arbiter of whether you get less care, more expensive care or rationed care. Remember the liberals who claimed that talk of rationing was “scaremongering?” It’s in the bill. We didn’t put it there; the House of Representatives did.

Second, the decision of whether your care gets reduced, costs more or is rationed is the decision of one non-elected bureaucrat: the secretary of DHHS. Not your elected officials. Not your doctor. Not you. Rationing and government bureaucratic control of healthcare have been the two biggest fears of Americans throughout this process. And now that fear is present in black and white in this bill.

The time for debate is over. As Americans we have a decision to make. Do we surrender more control over our lives to the government or do we do what Americans have always done, which is to find innovative, creative, independent solutions that improve the lives of all Americans, not make them worse?

Just thought you might like to know.