Obama and his nannies have now managed to get the full attention of the Catholic Church, after decreeing that Catholic institutions such as hospitals, schools, and universities must provide birth control, including contraceptives and abortions, for employees.

Secretary Sebelius at Health and Human Services issued the decree, citing authority under Obamacare.  The administration, despite public outrage, has robustly defended the measure, which they claim is a women’s health issue.  Sebelius authored an op-ed in USA Today, explaining:

One of the key benefits of the 2010 health care law is that many preventive services are now free for most Americans with insurance. Vaccinations for children, cancer screenings for adults and wellness visits for seniors are all now covered in most plans with no expensive co-pays or deductibles. So is the full range of preventive health services recommended for women by the highly respected Institute of Medicine, including contraception.

Cut away the agreeable platitudes that serve only to get half the population nodding in zombie-like fashion.  This isn’t about health.  It’s all about power.

The first amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Forget for a moment that Secretary Sebelius is not Congress, and that bureaucrats should not have this kind of law making power.  That’s a different crisis.  Interpret Congress to mean “the federal government.”  Is there any doubt whatsoever that this law demands that Catholic institutions violate their faith?

I was baptized in the Church, confirmed by the Church, and still attend mass (though admittedly not as frequently as I should).   My understanding of Catholic theology is satisfactory, and I’ve spent periods of my life studying various aspects of Catholicism.  Allow me to give a very basic thumbnail sketch of the Church’s teaching of the body, sex, and birth.  (Note to readers: feel free to correct me.)

The body is imperfect; it has been corrupted by Original Sin.  It can be glorified by virtuous acts, but is not divine in origin like the soul.  It is infirm, prone to disease, and is not intrinsically good or evil.  It manifests appetites, which can turn to vice if not controlled by reason.  Among these appetites is the sexual appetite.  Apart from God and outside His institution of marriage, sex is a base instinct.  The reproductive potentiality of men and women are in their very essence divine, and likewise the physical manifestation of love is to be regarded as mysterious.  It is a creative act, unique, which results in a new person with a divine soul.  The associated pleasure is “the icing on the cake.”  It is not in the providence of man to interfere with God’s intent in this domain.

You’ll notice the mix of ancient Grecian philosophy, Roman philosophy, and Christian philosophy.  The view is old world, and in the true sense of the word “catholic” (i.e. universal).  It takes into account man, nature, and man’s place in nature.  It looks to heaven for a larger meaning, and clearly proscribes man’s temporal authority to intervene in divine affairs.

Now: you may agree, disagree, laugh, scoff, or hold this view in reverence.   But the Church, likely the oldest continuous institution of Western civilization, takes Her view very seriously.  To violate it would be to endanger the souls of Her believers.  If push comes to shove, they will sooner shut their doors than violate their conscience.

Obama and his administration, deliberately, have acted in blatant defiance of America’s greatest freedom: freedom of religion.  Catholic bishops are now responding forcefully.  One Pennsylvania Bishop said recently:

“In the totalitarian government, they would love our system. This is what Hitler and Mussolini and all them tried to establish — a monolith; so all the children would be educated in one set of beliefs and one way of doing things.”

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, the head of Roman Catholic military chaplains, said that regulation “is a blow to a Freedom … for which you have seen your buddies fall in battle.”

Locally, Bishop Timothy Dolan of New York responded :”You bet we got a disagreement… It’s not about contraception. It’s about the right of conscience.”  Dolan continued, “The government doesn’t have the right to butt into the internal governance and teachings of the church… This is not a Catholic issue, it’s an American issue. We’re strong on this issue of conscience, and that’s what’s at stake here.”

The gloves are off.  I suggest that excommunications should not be ruled out for a president and party who seek to remake America in Obama’s image.

November can’t come soon enough.

…

Just remembered this.  Obama had Notre Dame cover up the letters IHS (Jesus) when he spoke at their in 2009.

Take, for example, this ridiculous paragraph:

To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as “Romneycare” is just a word game, on the order of acting like a “gun” has the same properties as a “gunny sack,” or “fire” is the same thing as a “firefly.”

Question: If I impose an immoral piece of legislation on 6.5 million people, and then another imposes the same basic legislation on 310 million, does the legislation affecting “only” 6.5 million people become somehow moral because it affects less people?  Of course not.

The individual mandate is what conservatives rightfully find absolutely appalling, and it is the keystone in both Romneycare and Obamacare.

Continues Ann,

While we’re on the subject, the nation’s leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage’s senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.

I like the Heritage Foundation as much as anyone.  But if the Heritage Foundation woke up one day and supported abortion, would I support abortion?  No.  Would Ann?  What if Romney did, again?

The problem, Ann, is that when you lose all mooring to principle you lose the ability to think straight.  You’ve twisted yourself into so many knots you’re not sure which way is up.  Matter of fact, so low your standards have fallen that you’re now quoting the unfunny, unserious, creep Jon Stewart to attack Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, “when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],” but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging “the Establishment” — because, again, “the Establishment” is anyone who opposes Newt.

Quoting a liberal icon to attack Romney’s opponent is as pitiful as Romney’s opponents attacking Bain Capital.  To nominate a liberal Republican to run against President Obama (a Marxist of the first order) would be dangerous, stupid, and ridiculous.

And I don’t even support Newt.  My candidate is Santorum.

Ann Coulter, Conservative.  May that career RIP.

Mark’s last book, Liberty and Tyranny, debuted in early 2009, right after the inauguration of President Obama.  It came also on the heels of September 2008’s stock market collapse, TARP, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (i.e. the “Stimulus”).  This time marked the beginning of the Tea Party movement, concerned primarily with debt and government overreach.  A self-admitted recluse, the author and radio host only had two book signings nationally: one at Book Revue, and another in Tysons Corner, Virginia.  Many, many Mark Levin fans showed up that March day; the crowd estimate was between 6,000 and 7,000 people, making it the largest ever for a store that has hosted acclaimed authors and former presidents.  The line wrapped around the block.  I stood in line for six hours that day, surrounded by some of the nicest people I’ve met.  Mark signed every last book.

Saturday was snowy and cold, and I was prepared to be outside again.  The event was to begin at noon, and I arrived at 10:45.  Gratefully at this time the line was still contained inside the store.  Thirty minutes later dedicated fans would begin encircling the block, with gloves, hats, and umbrellas, patiently waiting their turn to shake hands with Levin, or “The Great One,” as Levin is called by fans and friends alike.  Behind me in line was a friendly man named Rich, who, like me, listens to The Mark Levin Show via podcast.

Why would so many people spend their Saturday outside a book store on Long Island in the snow?  It’s because our country is in peril, and Mark fights to win.  Or, as Jeffrey Lord recently wrote in The American Spectator, “he never ducks.”  The systemic problems can leave us regular citizens feeling daunted, overwhelmed, and powerless.  Obama and the Democrat Party threaten the American experiment in a way it has never been threatened: by suicide.  But Mark Levin reminds us that it was the American people who against all odds fought and won the Revolutionary War, carried the cause of abolitionism, and who rose up to defeat the totalitarians of the 20^th century.  We are a great and proud people.  Though our culture has been steadily eroded by decades of progressive indoctrination, it is incumbent on those who understand what is at risk to inform their families and neighbors and take the first steps to restore limited, Constitutional government.  Peace with a subversive political party is tantamount to surrender; the left must be defeated.

The line moved quickly and soon it was my turn.  I asked, tongue-in-cheek, “I have a question for you: How does a young man like me take over my state’s party?”  Mark chuckled, and said “I don’t have an answer for that.”  He thought for a second.   “You need to start small.  Put together a group of ‘Young Turks.’  Think very strategically.”  Be resolute, smart, and persistent.

I replied, “Thank you, I’m trying!” And try must we all if the Republic is to be saved from itself.

I will be reviewing Ameritopia in the weeks to come.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 21 AT NOON
Book Revue
313 New York Avenue
Huntington NY 11743

In March ’09 I attended Levin’s signing of Liberty and Tyranny at Book Revue.  It may be considered one of the first Tea Party rallies, as approx. 7,000 people unexpectedly showed up and snaked around the block.

Huntington also happens to be my hometown, and there are lots of great bars and restaurants to visit.  Book Revue is a charming book store with a great cafe.  Make a day of it, enjoy the company of fellow patriots, and after treat yourself to a evening in Huntington!

The morning of the Iowa caucus, Reuters ran an innocuously entitled “news” piece called “Factbox: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.”

Is this a dispassionate review of his record and policy recommendations?  A biographical thumbnail sketch?  Some context of his time as Governor of Massachusetts?  Hardly.  We learn, among other things, that:

• He is a fifth-generation Mormon whose forebears were involved in the religious movement from the mid-19th century. Romney spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary in the 1960s, and speaks French.  Some Christian groups and voters don’t consider Mormonism a form of Christianity.
• In the 2008 campaign, Romney spent millions of dollars campaigning in Iowa only to lose to Mike Huckabee[.]
• As governor of Massachusetts, Romney instituted statewide healthcare reform that became a model for Obama’s national policy. Romney has defended the state law while calling for the repeal of Obama’s federal version, a tricky balancing act.
• Romney, a former venture capitalist, has centrist Republican proposals to cut corporate taxes, reduce federal regulations and cut spending. But he is seen by some as out of step with ordinary Americans. During one Republican debate Romney offered to bet $10,000 in a back-and-forth with Texas Governor Rick Perry.
• Multimillionaire Romney has been a strong fundraiser – with more money than any of the other Republican candidates.
• Animal rights groups criticized Romney during the 2008 campaign for an incident in 1983 when he drove 12 hours to Canada from Boston on vacation with the family dog in a crate strapped to the roof of their car.

Recap, in so many words:

Romney, a Mormon (i.e.  not a “real Christian”) multi-millionaire venture capitalist, is a wishy-washy half-hearted proto-Obama who sponsored an primitive form of Obamacare in Massachusetts and seems unlikely to advocate the repeal Obamacare if elected.  He is way out of touch with normal people, makes off-the-cuff $10,000 bets, and has spent exorbitant amounts of money campaigning in Iowa, the first time only to lose to Mike Huckabee.  And, evil of evils, he speaks French and tortures dogs.  Did we mention that Iowans are conservative Christian bigots?

Ah yes, fair reporting.  I can remember now those stories about Obama’s church and pastor, Obama’s constituents’ intolerance, Obama’s history with his pets, Obama’s non-fluency in foreign language (maybe he speaks “Austrian”?), Obama’s millions of dollars, and Obama’s off-the-cuff remark that he was going to fundamentally remake America.

Whoever ends up as the nominee better be prepared for two front war: Obama’s campaign machine, and 95% of all mainstream press outfits, including the “news only” wire services.

With nearly 90% of vote in, Rick Santorum is virtually tied with Mitt Romney for the winner of the Iowa caucus.  Drudge:

Rick 28,895
Mitt 28,841

It is appropriate to reflect on how blindsided the mainstream media and Republican establishment appear in hindsight.  It was Romney/Bachmann, then it was Romney/Cain, then Romney/Gingrich, and then… Rick Santorum?  Did that guy ever speak at the debates?

We should not let a small cabal of talking heads and political operatives pick our nominee.  Money can swing elections, but only votes count in the end.  Tonight, as Rick Santorum is poised for victory, we are reminded that the American people are far wiser than most of their elected leaders, political consultants, and would-be kingmakers.

GO RICK GO!

Like clockwork every few decades, some self-described European “visionaries” swear that the continent can either live in peace under utopian protocols or, more darkly, be united under one grand — and undemocratic — system, willingly or not. But for all the noble pretensions of the Congress of Vienna and the European Union — and the nightmarish spread of Napoleon’s Continental System and the Third Reich — and for all the promises of European-born fascism, Communism, and socialism, the result is always the same: disunion, acrimony, and infighting.

Hanson, formerly a classics professor, succinctly captures the age-old problems that define multicultural continent with a long history of war.  His unique blending of ancient and modern history give the reader a sweeping view of today’s pertinent challenges facing the Continent, and they are, in many ways, parallel to those it faced in the 9th century.

I think it is worth remembering that America’s present situation is historically unique; our financial position is perilous, and if not for the continued printing of money we’d be bankrupted by Washington’s refusal to seriously address entitlement reform.  Concurrently, Congress and the executive continue to enact and promote extraconstitutional legislation.  Thus, as Europe implodes under the sheer weight of their latest utopian scheme (i.e., the modern welfare state), America’s traditional ability to serve as a bastion for human freedom is in jeopardy.

Think conservative.  Think of the types of people who are, generally speaking, conservative.  Name some you know.

Now think liberal; liberal types of people; liberal people you know.  Keep both groups in mind for a few minutes.

It is only natural to grow accustomed to certain assumptions: you would never, for example, critically re-examine why it is better to have an umbrella when it rains.  Obviously, it helps to keep you dry.  But as other to ideas we hold, such as who constitutes the typical liberal or conservative, a shifting political reality demands that we apply a critical eye.

What does our news media, popular entertainment, and pop culture tell us about how we’re supposed think about liberals and conservatives?  I’ll elaborate my perspective on this question.

Who are the “liberals?”  They’re women, minorities, gays, “transient workers,” the poor, (now apparently) the “middle class,” and union workers.  If you listen to Democrats, they’ll tell you story after horror story about people in these neatly divided classes who have suffered at the hand of big business, racism, an unjust criminal code, and sexism.

And the conservatives?  The conservatives, particularly the “Republicans,” are white males, religious people, the “rich,” and a curious mix of racists and rednecks, either seething with hatred of all minorities or madly in love with their guns, if not both. If you listen to elected Republicans, too many waste precious news time explaining that they’re not really racist, that they really do care about the “middle class,” and oppose theocracy.  Fortunately for these weak “leaders,” such as Mr. Boehner, very few conservatives are listening to their weak voices.

Now think back to your initial groups.  Check it against your daily experience.  Speaking personally, I know conservative gays, conservative women, conservative union members, conservative immigrants (legal, of course), conservative teachers, etc.  I know wealthy liberals.  I know lower middle class conservatives.  You probably do too.

So what?  The groups aren’t perfect, you say, but they’re more or less accurate.  It’s true that groups typically associated with Democrats vote for them, and the same goes for Republicans.  What kind of a ridiculous article is this?

May I implore the good reader to think deeper?  Democrats, it is indisputable, seek to portray Republicans as uncaring because they are relatively more resistant to extending special privileges to (read: pandering to) certain factions of the population.  Said Speaker Pelosi in October: “Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”  As underwhelming as Speaker Boehner is, it’s difficult to imagine that he wants any part of women dying on the floor.

Such revolting rhetoric is symptomatic of a political party that no longer represents all citizens.  Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all of the Democrat leadership have adopted an extremely cynical and destructive agenda and campaigning tactics that divide us by race, sex, and income bracket.  On the promise of rewarding 50.1% of the population at the expense of the other 49.9%, they are staking virtually all their election prospects.  Such a campaign is guaranteed to be poisonous, angry, personal, and downright dirty.  Democrats have themselves made this explicit:

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

Democrats know, through recent experience, that their promises for a better country are lies.  The “working class,” after 3 years of Obama, is suffering with extraordinary unemployment, debt, and loss of personal freedom.  The black community is suffering especially hard.  All kinds of Americans are languishing under a vigorous and systematic statist agenda, one that proscribes private property rights and selectively applies laws, to say nothing of its dangerously inept foreign policy.  Obama and his advisers know that the economy is stalled; they admit just that each time Obama says “Pass this bill now!”

But why would they do this?  The reason is not difficult to understand, but can difficult to believe and accept.  Democrats are power hungry.  They want a permanent class of overlords, managers, intellectuals, and state-funded “scientists.”  In capitalist countries, like traditional America, a permanence of power among a small clique is exceptionally rare.  The greatest families of this nation – the Morgans, the Rockefellers, the Vanderbuilts, the Roosevelts – achieved power, sure.  But not power that spans centuries, like the aristocracy and royalty of Europe.  To achieve longevity requires the co-opting of the political system.

These ideas may sound conspiratorial, but they have a long, written history.  Plato’s Republic was “ideal,” presumably fair, and totalitarian.  Skipping the various manifestations of tyranny that spanned the Middle Ages, French philosophers revived the myth of a virtuous ruling class that could eradicate the troubles of life.  Saint-Simon imbued Auguste Comte with a false knowledge of man, Comte in turn influenced Hegel, and it was Hegel who gave Marx his famous dialectic.  (See Hayek.)  Rousseau contributed the romantic notion of a virtuous natural world beleaguered only by corrupt human institutions.  The destruction of Western political culture comes from those who always promise smarter “rule” through revolution.

Among a massive state apparatus that treats a citizen like a client there is no room for a party that represents a free people, much less a free people to elect such a party.  The people vote for Party A, because A promises to give more to more people than Party B.  It’s impossible to promise two people the same loaf of bread, but it is possible to offer them the same nebulous entitlement program.  See Canada, where neither party opposes nationalized healthcare in principle, but only in trivial detail.  See England, where Prime Minister Cameron meekly manages a dangerous decline.  See Europe, as it erupts in chaos as a result of diminishing rations.  Yet in all the turmoil and debt, do you see any political party in Canada, the U.K., or the EU standing athwart history?  Do you hear them yelling stop?

America’s unique tradition of liberty has preserved the freedom of her citizens.  Right now, our nation’s future is in danger.  Democrats are potentially one election away from cementing their agenda to remake the American government into a giant corporation, thus rendering the American people customers without any alternatives or legal recourse.  Fundamental transformation is their stated goal, and divide and conquer is their strategy for victory.

Speaker Boehner and every presidential candidate should explain to the American people what is at stake.  Explain what President Reagan meant when he said:

Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes – one rich, one poor – both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?

Do not let yourself be identified as your government as anything else but an American, and reject the familiar caricature of political identities.  Demand nothing more than your rights.    This staid mentality will be what saves us or won’t.

Reagan’s famous “11th Commandment” warned that ““Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Maybe I recommend a 12th?

“Thou shalt not abandon fellow Republicans in the fight against liberalism” …  Which brings me to a letter I received from a friend.

“William,” it read “Do you remember a few months back you helped me out with Conservative talk show host, Douglas Urbanski? You were so kind enough to announce it on the [NYYRC] website…. Well… due to Liberal [expletive deleted] The Doug Urbanski Show is going to be off the air in ten days. The show has high ratings. But a new bunch of peeps are coming in, that leans towards Liberal ideas, and Doug is out.”

While I have no doubt that Doug, conservative broadcaster and Hollywood agent, will find new work – and that the liberal who replaces him will fail, just like the pathetic Air America – let’s show our support for those who speak our values by visiting his website and listening to his show!  He has another 10 shows left.

Tune in!  Call in!  Send a message that in these perilous times, conservatives won’t be marginalized.  It’s through grassroots activism like this that we will win our country back.

Very sincerely yours,

William

P.S. – You can visit his producer’s conservative website here: http://www.imao.us/

P.P.S. – It wasn’t such a bad expletive.  Just “schmucks.”  But it was hard to resist the reference.

For counsel, one is wise to consult with the great Austrian school economists, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek.   In 1912 Mises published The Theory of and Credit, in which he extended the law of supply and demand to money (including the loanable funds market).  Using this powerful application of economics’ most fundamental law, Mises went on to argue that price information – that is, cost in terms of money – was necessary to establish a well-ordered economy, if not modern civilization itself.  Hayek applied Mises’ insights to the Great Depression, and explained how credit expansion by government distorts price information, eventually leading to economic bust.  In particular, credit expansion impairs entrepreneurs’ ability to forecast, the rational basis of which (prices) has been rendered undependable by the (government) increase in the money supply.  This, simply stated, is what our Federal Reserve does best.  To be sure, the Austrian critique is a subtle and devastating argument against government economic intervention in every form.

But is this too confident an assertion?  Were Mises and Hayek overreaching?

Think for a moment about the millions of economic decisions made every second of day.  Is price not a major determinant in what you choose to purchase and in what you accept as remuneration for your labor?  (In the case of my desire for a Ferrari, it is the only determinant.)  If by magic all prices jumped 10% tomorrow morning, wouldn’t we make different choices than we make today?  Could you afford a new wardrobe, television, and apartment if you were to win millions of dollars in the lottery?  Yes, to answer each question; self-evidently so.  People take into account prices when buying groceries, trading stocks, and making business decisions.   Investments in the future are made on the basis of profit-and-loss projections, given a certain interest rate (i.e., the price on a loan).  Economic choices hinge critically on price.

After this contemplation, we come to understand why Mises and Hayek regarded spontaneously generated price information as the only rational basis for economy in a modern society.  Price information signals to society what is productive, what is valuable, and what it can afford.  Business seeks profit, workers higher pay, and consumers less costly goods.  Arbitrary prices set by government decree are artificial, and lead to shortages and gluts.  Only free people engaging in voluntary exchange generate genuine price information that allows society to organize its industry.

There’s one Republican candidate running for President of the United States who champions Austrian economics, and Mises in particular.  This candidate is Ron Paul.  For the record, I believe Paul’s foreign policy is not only stupid but dangerous, and I would never support him for President.  Dr. Paul is also notable for advocacy of complete drug legalization – heroine included.  The folly of his little crusade aside, Merriam Webster Medical Dictionary defines a drug as “something and often an illicit substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness.”  Hmm.  Counterfeiting is certainly illicit.  Governments have clearly proved themselves addicted to printing money.  And the inevitable price distortion and resulting bad decisions are a “marked change in consciousness” from the previously sober consumer and businessman.

Why all the chaos with economies lately?  The analogy is borrowed from an unlikely source.  As the classic PSA put it: “This is drugs.”  Crack!  Sizzle! “This is your economy on drugs.”

Any questions?