For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
AND THE THIRD ANGEL FOLLOWED THEM, SAYING WITH A LOUD VOICE, IF ANY MAN WORSHIP THE BEAST AND HIS IMAGE, AND RECEIVE HIS MARK IN HIS FOREHEAD, OR IN HIS HAND. *** REVELATION 14:9
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Congress, Catholics and Canadians
By Mary Starrett
November 12, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
Passage of H.R. 3692 was a thumb of the nose to all Americans who actually understand the Constitution. No where in that hallowed document is there allowance for the federal government to establish, oversee, require or otherwise meddle in the business of health insurance and healthcare. No where.
Yet, 220 elected Congressional representatives rammed an unconstitutional bill down our collective gullets caring nothing for the well established fact that Americans do not want this monster. So, what will you do about it? Keep re-electing the incumbents who ignored your wishes though scores of Town Hall meetings confirmed the massive opposition to federal control of health care?
According to a recent poll, the healthcare plan has been opposed by 90% of Republicans and 58% of unaffiliated voters. The passage of the bill (HR 3692) which now heads to the Senate was touted as “historic”; perhaps it was... seeing as voters didn’t want it though it was passed anyway.
With mega special interest groups like AARP and the AMA pushing for passage of Obamacare, it showed exactly who was pulling the strings behind this behemoth socialized medicine bill. Add to those groups another powerful political force which pushed for the House bill, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Go figure.
According to Accuracy in Media, Catholic lobbyists were wheeling and dealing with the devil handing the pro-abortion Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a sign-off on the bill some credit with getting it passed. So what we have here essentially is the Catholic Mafia cutting a deal to foist one of the most dangerous socialist schemes on Americans. This coming from a group purporting to be “pro-life,” making all kinds of noise about abortion provisions in the healthcare bill while consistently putting the kibosh on anti-abortion personhood bills in states like Michigan, Georgia, Colorado, Florida and North Dakota.
Pro-life activist Judie Brown wrote:
Over the years I have tried on many occasions to understand the apparent disconnect between the bureaucrats at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the fundamental teaching of the Roman Catholic (Church).
Brown, like so many others has been perplexed why supposedly pro-life clerics would refuse to support amendments which seek to establish the life of the pre-born as “persons” pointing out:
The bishops go on to reaffirm their view “that it will be more prudent to pursue incremental measures that add to existing protections in law and help change hearts and minds.”
There you have it, in their own words they’d rather stand around for another 36 years and twiddle their thumbs while millions more babies have their limbs torn apart and “pursue incremental measures” than cut to the chase making it clear that a person is a person whether born or unborn.
Ironically, the Canadians who’ve suffered under the weight of government-controlled healthcare are now rethinking the mess they made up there and are looking toward replacing their national health care with one more resembling ours, or should I say one that used to resemble ours.
Congress, Catholic Bishops and Canadians have spoken. Now, how will we respond?
November 12, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
Passage of H.R. 3692 was a thumb of the nose to all Americans who actually understand the Constitution. No where in that hallowed document is there allowance for the federal government to establish, oversee, require or otherwise meddle in the business of health insurance and healthcare. No where.
Yet, 220 elected Congressional representatives rammed an unconstitutional bill down our collective gullets caring nothing for the well established fact that Americans do not want this monster. So, what will you do about it? Keep re-electing the incumbents who ignored your wishes though scores of Town Hall meetings confirmed the massive opposition to federal control of health care?
According to a recent poll, the healthcare plan has been opposed by 90% of Republicans and 58% of unaffiliated voters. The passage of the bill (HR 3692) which now heads to the Senate was touted as “historic”; perhaps it was... seeing as voters didn’t want it though it was passed anyway.
With mega special interest groups like AARP and the AMA pushing for passage of Obamacare, it showed exactly who was pulling the strings behind this behemoth socialized medicine bill. Add to those groups another powerful political force which pushed for the House bill, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Go figure.
According to Accuracy in Media, Catholic lobbyists were wheeling and dealing with the devil handing the pro-abortion Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a sign-off on the bill some credit with getting it passed. So what we have here essentially is the Catholic Mafia cutting a deal to foist one of the most dangerous socialist schemes on Americans. This coming from a group purporting to be “pro-life,” making all kinds of noise about abortion provisions in the healthcare bill while consistently putting the kibosh on anti-abortion personhood bills in states like Michigan, Georgia, Colorado, Florida and North Dakota.
Pro-life activist Judie Brown wrote:
Over the years I have tried on many occasions to understand the apparent disconnect between the bureaucrats at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the fundamental teaching of the Roman Catholic (Church).
Brown, like so many others has been perplexed why supposedly pro-life clerics would refuse to support amendments which seek to establish the life of the pre-born as “persons” pointing out:
The bishops go on to reaffirm their view “that it will be more prudent to pursue incremental measures that add to existing protections in law and help change hearts and minds.”
There you have it, in their own words they’d rather stand around for another 36 years and twiddle their thumbs while millions more babies have their limbs torn apart and “pursue incremental measures” than cut to the chase making it clear that a person is a person whether born or unborn.
Ironically, the Canadians who’ve suffered under the weight of government-controlled healthcare are now rethinking the mess they made up there and are looking toward replacing their national health care with one more resembling ours, or should I say one that used to resemble ours.
Congress, Catholic Bishops and Canadians have spoken. Now, how will we respond?
.
.
New Rules Would Restrict Overdraft Fees on Debit Cards
WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve announced new rules on Thursday that would prohibit banks and other issuers of debit cards from charging consumers overdraft fees in many instances without the permission of the cardholder.
The rules, which take effect next summer, come as Congress has been considering whether to impose similar restraints, as well as other legislation that would take away the Fed’s authority to regulate credit cards and mortgages and give it to a new consumer financial protection agency.
The rules are the latest in a series issued by the Fed in response to criticism that it did not move quickly and aggressively enough to root out deceptive and abusive consumer lending practices. Last year the Fed issued rules on predatory loans and abusive mortgage practices.
Under the rules announced on Thursday, consumers must be given a notice that explains the card policies, including fees. Without express permission from the consumer, the card issuer cannot charge for overdrafts at retail stores or A.T.M.’s. The disclosures are required to be made in simple and easy-to-understand notices that customers should soon be receiving.
The rules are aimed at reducing fees for more ordinary purchases, such as at bookstores or coffee shops, where the overdraft fee could be significantly larger than the purchase itself.
Fed officials said the new rules would not cover overdraft fees for checks because consumer studies showed that bank customers were more likely to accept such fees since checks were more typically used for more essential purchases. Nor will they cover overdrafts from recurring debit card transactions, such as to pay for utility or telephone bills that are set up in advance.
“The final overdraft rules represent an important step forward in consumer protection,” the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, said. “Both new and existing account holders will be able to make informed decisions about whether to sign up for an overdraft service.”
Fed officials said that the banking industry receives $25 billion to $38 billion a year in overdraft fees, including fees for checks and electronic transactions not covered by the new rules.
Last month Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee, introduced legislation to limit the number of overdraft fees to one a month and to require a bank to seek permission from consumers to cover debit card and check purchases that would push their bank balance below zero. Under the proposal, banks would have to cap the number of overdrafts that they charge at six a year and require fees to be proportional to the cost of processing the overdraft.
On Tuesday, Mr. Dodd proposed a sweeping overhaul of the regulatory system that included consolidating bank regulators and creating a consumer financial protection agency that would take the Federal Reserve out of the business of regulating credit cards and mortgages.
The House Financial Services Committee has already approved similar legislation on the new consumer protection agency. The Obama administration has urged the creation of such an agency, which has been opposed by the bank industry.
“Overdraft fees can be costly,” said the Fed governor, Elizabeth A. Duke, chairwoman of the board’s committee on consumer and community affairs. “Our rule will help consumers better understand the terms and conditions of overdraft services and will give them an opportunity to avoid fees when these services do not meet their needs.”
The rules will take effect for new cards on July 1. For existing accounts, issuers will not be able to charge overdraft fees without the permission of the cardholder after Aug. 15.
.
.
The hypocrisy of Political Correctness and the case of Nidal Malik Hasan

A week has passed since Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an U.S. Army Psychiatrist killed 13 and wounded 3o, when he went on a rampage opening fire on his fellow soldiers on Fort Hood in Texas. The crazed Major was eventually shot and incapacitated by Dept. of Defense Police Officer Sgt. Kimberly Munley.
The moment that the perpetrator's religion was revealed, the apologies and excuses began to fly like migrating birds in the Spring. Immediately, the White House issued caution in jumping to conclusions; they argued that the shooting had nothing to do with N. M. Hasan being a Muslim. On native soil, on an Army installation 13 soldiers were killed and 30 others were wounded; Yet, this had nothing to do with Islam?
After the shootings occurred, and Hasan lay in Coma, all types of discoveries were made about his life. His personality was described as erratic, belligerent at times, and submissive at other times. He was said to have strong feelings about Islam and the war the U.S. was currently conducting in Muslim homelands. Reports began to pour in about Hasan's relationship with Imam Anwar Al Awlaki (who praised the shootings). Also, it was stated that Hasan attended a Mosque in Virginia, at the same time as two of the "911 hijackers". Then the most condemning information surfaced: Hasan was a sub-standard performer at Walter Reed Medical Center; His supervisors had transferred him to Ft. Hood hoping that he would 'disappear' in the crowd (Ft. Hood is the largest Armed Forces installation in the U.S.)
The speculation will continue until Nidal Malik Hasan is finally convicted for his crime. By the way, he will be tried by a military tribunal. However, the hypocrisy that surrounds this incident is flabbergasting. When a Muslim goes into a rage and kills American soldiers in a secured Army post; How can anyone doubt that this wasn't a terrorist attack? Why are the government authorities so swift to pacify the country with assurances that this has nothing to do with Terrorism? They swear this was just an isolated incident.
If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks?
The moment that the perpetrator's religion was revealed, the apologies and excuses began to fly like migrating birds in the Spring. Immediately, the White House issued caution in jumping to conclusions; they argued that the shooting had nothing to do with N. M. Hasan being a Muslim. On native soil, on an Army installation 13 soldiers were killed and 30 others were wounded; Yet, this had nothing to do with Islam?
After the shootings occurred, and Hasan lay in Coma, all types of discoveries were made about his life. His personality was described as erratic, belligerent at times, and submissive at other times. He was said to have strong feelings about Islam and the war the U.S. was currently conducting in Muslim homelands. Reports began to pour in about Hasan's relationship with Imam Anwar Al Awlaki (who praised the shootings). Also, it was stated that Hasan attended a Mosque in Virginia, at the same time as two of the "911 hijackers". Then the most condemning information surfaced: Hasan was a sub-standard performer at Walter Reed Medical Center; His supervisors had transferred him to Ft. Hood hoping that he would 'disappear' in the crowd (Ft. Hood is the largest Armed Forces installation in the U.S.)
The speculation will continue until Nidal Malik Hasan is finally convicted for his crime. By the way, he will be tried by a military tribunal. However, the hypocrisy that surrounds this incident is flabbergasting. When a Muslim goes into a rage and kills American soldiers in a secured Army post; How can anyone doubt that this wasn't a terrorist attack? Why are the government authorities so swift to pacify the country with assurances that this has nothing to do with Terrorism? They swear this was just an isolated incident.
If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks?
When our (volunteers) troops are killed on native soil by fellow soldiers has got to be the ultimate breach of confidence. Where is there safety if not on an Army installation?
Here's the ultimate delusion; This morning I heard a disclaimer on NPR before they interviewed, yet, another Islamic impartial expert, a Muslim Chaplain: We need to remember that Hasan is innocent until proven guilty. Hasan has regained consciousness, and has asked for a lawyer; He refuses to cooperate with the investigators.
Political Correctness is a sickening ethic. When you apologize for all types of degenerate human acts, and beliefs; And, pretend an impartial mind set towards all kinds of practices, and condemn righteousness; Ridicule traditional decency, but, applaud decadence. How can you have 13 dead soldiers, 30 others injured for life, and say that we don't know if this a terrorist attack?
Who knows why Hasan snapped? Just like the modern trend we are defending the perpetrator and victimizing the victim. Does 13 dead soldiers killed by friendly fire register in you distorted political correct psyche? Stop the lopsided rationales. Twisted logic? No, backward intelligence.
Arsenio.
20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
22Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
23Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
Here's the ultimate delusion; This morning I heard a disclaimer on NPR before they interviewed, yet, another Islamic impartial expert, a Muslim Chaplain: We need to remember that Hasan is innocent until proven guilty. Hasan has regained consciousness, and has asked for a lawyer; He refuses to cooperate with the investigators.
Political Correctness is a sickening ethic. When you apologize for all types of degenerate human acts, and beliefs; And, pretend an impartial mind set towards all kinds of practices, and condemn righteousness; Ridicule traditional decency, but, applaud decadence. How can you have 13 dead soldiers, 30 others injured for life, and say that we don't know if this a terrorist attack?
Who knows why Hasan snapped? Just like the modern trend we are defending the perpetrator and victimizing the victim. Does 13 dead soldiers killed by friendly fire register in you distorted political correct psyche? Stop the lopsided rationales. Twisted logic? No, backward intelligence.
Arsenio.
20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
22Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
23Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
Isaiah 5:20-23.
P.S. The author of this blog knows a little about serving in the Armed Forces. Received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Air Force on November 11, 1978.
.
And the prophets shall become wind, and the word is not in them: thus shall it be done unto them.
Jeremiah 5
1Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.
2And though they say, The LORD liveth; surely they swear falsely.
3O LORD, are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return.
4Therefore I said, Surely these are poor; they are foolish: for they know not the way of the LORD, nor the judgment of their God.
5I will get me unto the great men, and will speak unto them; for they have known the way of the LORD, and the judgment of their God: but these have altogether broken the yoke, and burst the bonds.
6Wherefore a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them, a leopard shall watch over their cities: every one that goeth out thence shall be torn in pieces: because their transgressions are many, and their backslidings are increased.
7How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots' houses.
8They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour's wife.
9Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
10Go ye up upon her walls, and destroy; but make not a full end: take away her battlements; for they are not the LORD's.
11For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very treacherously against me, saith the LORD.
12They have belied the LORD, and said, It is not he; neither shall evil come upon us; neither shall we see sword nor famine:
13And the prophets shall become wind, and the word is not in them: thus shall it be done unto them.
14Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.
15Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.
16Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men.
17And they shall eat up thine harvest, and thy bread, which thy sons and thy daughters should eat: they shall eat up thy flocks and thine herds: they shall eat up thy vines and thy fig trees: they shall impoverish thy fenced cities, wherein thou trustedst, with the sword.
18Nevertheless in those days, saith the LORD, I will not make a full end with you.
19And it shall come to pass, when ye shall say, Wherefore doeth the LORD our God all these things unto us? then shalt thou answer them, Like as ye have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not your's.
20Declare this in the house of Jacob, and publish it in Judah, saying,
21Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
22Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?
23But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone.
24Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the LORD our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in his season: he reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest.
25Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you.
26For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.
27As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich.
28They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge.
29Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
30A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;
31The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?
1Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.
2And though they say, The LORD liveth; surely they swear falsely.
3O LORD, are not thine eyes upon the truth? thou hast stricken them, but they have not grieved; thou hast consumed them, but they have refused to receive correction: they have made their faces harder than a rock; they have refused to return.
4Therefore I said, Surely these are poor; they are foolish: for they know not the way of the LORD, nor the judgment of their God.
5I will get me unto the great men, and will speak unto them; for they have known the way of the LORD, and the judgment of their God: but these have altogether broken the yoke, and burst the bonds.
6Wherefore a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them, a leopard shall watch over their cities: every one that goeth out thence shall be torn in pieces: because their transgressions are many, and their backslidings are increased.
7How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots' houses.
8They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour's wife.
9Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
10Go ye up upon her walls, and destroy; but make not a full end: take away her battlements; for they are not the LORD's.
11For the house of Israel and the house of Judah have dealt very treacherously against me, saith the LORD.
12They have belied the LORD, and said, It is not he; neither shall evil come upon us; neither shall we see sword nor famine:
13And the prophets shall become wind, and the word is not in them: thus shall it be done unto them.
14Wherefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, Because ye speak this word, behold, I will make my words in thy mouth fire, and this people wood, and it shall devour them.
15Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.
16Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men.
17And they shall eat up thine harvest, and thy bread, which thy sons and thy daughters should eat: they shall eat up thy flocks and thine herds: they shall eat up thy vines and thy fig trees: they shall impoverish thy fenced cities, wherein thou trustedst, with the sword.
18Nevertheless in those days, saith the LORD, I will not make a full end with you.
19And it shall come to pass, when ye shall say, Wherefore doeth the LORD our God all these things unto us? then shalt thou answer them, Like as ye have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not your's.
20Declare this in the house of Jacob, and publish it in Judah, saying,
21Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:
22Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?
23But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone.
24Neither say they in their heart, Let us now fear the LORD our God, that giveth rain, both the former and the latter, in his season: he reserveth unto us the appointed weeks of the harvest.
25Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you.
26For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.
27As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich.
28They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge.
29Shall I not visit for these things? saith the LORD: shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?
30A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;
31The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Puerto Rico’s National Strike: “Peaceful Insurrection” Against the Wall Street Bankers
by Ivan Gutierrez del Arroyo
Global Research, November 11, 2009
- 2009-11-08
- 2009-11-08
San Juan, Puerto Rico – The aftermath of Puerto Rico’s 200,000 persons National Strike is the transformation of a civic struggle into a “Peoples Peaceful Insurrection” against the real power behind Republican Governor Luis Fortuno: the Wall Street’s Bankers, who control the Island $47 Billions public debt. The Oct. 15’s one-day strike was led by a broad Coalition for Puerto Rico (CPR) spearheaded by the Methodist Bishop Juan Vera Mendez (JVM), including all key sectors of Puerto Rico’s Civic Society and all the labor unions. The big losers were the corrupt two-party system and the US repressive agencies operating in the Island, such as the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI), the Federal Prosecutor and the FBI-controlled National Police Superintendent and his anti-riot elite units.
Bishop Vera: War Against US “Brutal Capitalism”
Bishop Vera Mendez concluded the all-day National Strike with a very energetic and emotional address, which reminded many of the participants of Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech in 1963 in Washington, D.C. “Today our People’s dignity and solidarity have defeated the God of fear” of Gov. Fortuno and his bankers, stated the spokesman for the CPR. “At this democratic assembly the Puerto Rican Nation demanded the repeal of Law #7…which blamed the state workers for the alleged financial crisis, the same brutal capitalist model which push the world’s economy into a deep recession,” stated the Methodist Bishop. Up to now close to 25,000 unionized state employees have been fired because of Law #7, and about 100,000 workers have been lay-offs in the private sectors during the recent fiscal years. Although the official unemployment rate is 18%, the real unemployment is between 25-30%, if you include permanent unemployed workers who gave up and are not looking for jobs anymore.
In spite of the FBI and Police’s anti-riot brutal repression, stressed Vera, “our response is the non-violence’s moral force. Guided by Jesus’ words we affirmed that those who work for peace are fortunate. .. Today we go from simple protest to resistance and civil disobedience, as we did between 1999-2003 to rescue the Island of Vieques (from the US Navy).” Like Rev. King, Bishop Vera Mendez combined his social struggle analysis with a Christian hope for social justice and freedom. This was Gandhi’s moral and spiritual strength, which he used to liberate more than a billion persons in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The End of the Corrupt Two-Party’s System
The pro-Statehood New Progressive Party (NPP) is an state of denial of the Island’s new social and political reality, which is breaking apart the typical behavior of the ruling colonial elite. The only exception is radio commentator Ignacio Rivera. In his daily two-hour radio program, the former CIA agent, urged GOP Gov. Fortuno to face reality and start negotiations with Bishop Vera Mendez and the leading Puerto Rican trade unions leaders. I am not questioning the Governor’s harsh austerity measures, which are modeled in Reagan’s neoliberal policies, but his refusal to even consider negotiations with his labor and civic opponents, stressed Rivera in his radio show.
The situation in the Opposition Popular Democratic Party (PDP) is even worse because it is being run by a pro-Statehood clique led by former Gov. Rafael Hernandez Colon, who is a 100% behind Fortuno’s brutal assault against the 4 millions-island population. The former Governor is trying to force out a growing youth faction, which wants to forge a liberal-leftist coalition with Labor unions, pro-Independence and Women groups, organized poor communities and civic groups, such as the lawyers and social workers associations. Although this youth faction forced the PDP to join the National Strike, is still perceived by the population as a corrupt and traditional political party.
In spite of the fact that the pro-Independence forces represent today only about 10-15% of the total population in the Island, they embodied the moral and intellectual strength of the Puerto Rican Nation. After more than 500 years of Spanish and American military occupation, our culture and nationality is alive and still resemble more the traditions found all over Latin America. Many of the 4 millions Puerto Ricans, who lived in the US mainland, still considered themselves part of our nation and our mix afro-hispanic-indian culture, including US Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Because of all the above reasons pro-Independence leaders, such as radio commentator Wilda Rodriguez and Juan Mari Bras, the former head of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PSP), are the best qualify to understand the present economic Depression hitting the Island. In addition, they are the most capable to propose short and long-term solutions to the ongoing political and economic crisis.
The Coalition Transformation Into a National Reconstruction Alliance(NRA) & the Formation of a Pro Independence Congress
In a recent newspaper analysis, Ms. Rodriguez put forward a futurist scenario, where Bishop Vera’s Coalition become a NRA Party to be able to participate in the 2012 election against the corrupt NPP-PDP’s two party system. This new liberal-leftist alliance has a 10-point program, which is based in the Island struggle to regain its own sovereignty, which was taken away by the US Congress through the military occupation of Puerto Rico in 1898. Among the key point of the NRA program is the power to make our own trade accord with other foreign nations, including the US, Europe, Africa and Asia. We could also join the South American Common Market Union (UNASUR) and America’s Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA). The UNASUR and ALBA are two trade and economic alternatives to the US-led North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA), its affiliates in Central and South America and the Caribbean.
During the last year, Mari Bras has spearheaded a nation-wide campaign to forge an alliance among all the pro Independence groups through the creation of the Third Pro Independence Congress. Although this organizing drive is being torpedoed by the odd alliance between the conservative Puerto Rican Independence Party and the ultra-leftist Socialist Workers Movement, Mari Bras and his allies are still very optimist because the economic Depression will force a new realignment of all the political forces in the Island.
According to the former head of the PSP and founder of the 50 years-old weekly pro-Independence newspaper Claridad, the present task of a revolutionary living in the Island is to propose short-term and practical solutions to the people’s daily struggle, and in that way, “we get closer to our strategic goals.” This means supporting the proposal put forward by leaders of different political ideologies, which urged Gov. Fortuno to tax by 10% all US corporations doing business in the Island. This would solve our immediate financial crisis, and put back to work the 25,000 state workers, which have been lay-off during the last two month. This represents a creative way “to find real solutions in order to go through turbid times, like the present one, and thus, at last enter the XXI Century,” concluded Mari Bras in a recent analysis for Claridad.
Ivan Gutierrez del Arroyo can be reached at gutierrezdelarroyoivan@yahoo.com
Global Research Articles by Ivan Gutierrez del Arroyo
Bishop Vera: War Against US “Brutal Capitalism”
Bishop Vera Mendez concluded the all-day National Strike with a very energetic and emotional address, which reminded many of the participants of Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech in 1963 in Washington, D.C. “Today our People’s dignity and solidarity have defeated the God of fear” of Gov. Fortuno and his bankers, stated the spokesman for the CPR. “At this democratic assembly the Puerto Rican Nation demanded the repeal of Law #7…which blamed the state workers for the alleged financial crisis, the same brutal capitalist model which push the world’s economy into a deep recession,” stated the Methodist Bishop. Up to now close to 25,000 unionized state employees have been fired because of Law #7, and about 100,000 workers have been lay-offs in the private sectors during the recent fiscal years. Although the official unemployment rate is 18%, the real unemployment is between 25-30%, if you include permanent unemployed workers who gave up and are not looking for jobs anymore.
In spite of the FBI and Police’s anti-riot brutal repression, stressed Vera, “our response is the non-violence’s moral force. Guided by Jesus’ words we affirmed that those who work for peace are fortunate. .. Today we go from simple protest to resistance and civil disobedience, as we did between 1999-2003 to rescue the Island of Vieques (from the US Navy).” Like Rev. King, Bishop Vera Mendez combined his social struggle analysis with a Christian hope for social justice and freedom. This was Gandhi’s moral and spiritual strength, which he used to liberate more than a billion persons in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The End of the Corrupt Two-Party’s System
The pro-Statehood New Progressive Party (NPP) is an state of denial of the Island’s new social and political reality, which is breaking apart the typical behavior of the ruling colonial elite. The only exception is radio commentator Ignacio Rivera. In his daily two-hour radio program, the former CIA agent, urged GOP Gov. Fortuno to face reality and start negotiations with Bishop Vera Mendez and the leading Puerto Rican trade unions leaders. I am not questioning the Governor’s harsh austerity measures, which are modeled in Reagan’s neoliberal policies, but his refusal to even consider negotiations with his labor and civic opponents, stressed Rivera in his radio show.
The situation in the Opposition Popular Democratic Party (PDP) is even worse because it is being run by a pro-Statehood clique led by former Gov. Rafael Hernandez Colon, who is a 100% behind Fortuno’s brutal assault against the 4 millions-island population. The former Governor is trying to force out a growing youth faction, which wants to forge a liberal-leftist coalition with Labor unions, pro-Independence and Women groups, organized poor communities and civic groups, such as the lawyers and social workers associations. Although this youth faction forced the PDP to join the National Strike, is still perceived by the population as a corrupt and traditional political party.
In spite of the fact that the pro-Independence forces represent today only about 10-15% of the total population in the Island, they embodied the moral and intellectual strength of the Puerto Rican Nation. After more than 500 years of Spanish and American military occupation, our culture and nationality is alive and still resemble more the traditions found all over Latin America. Many of the 4 millions Puerto Ricans, who lived in the US mainland, still considered themselves part of our nation and our mix afro-hispanic-indian culture, including US Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Because of all the above reasons pro-Independence leaders, such as radio commentator Wilda Rodriguez and Juan Mari Bras, the former head of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party (PSP), are the best qualify to understand the present economic Depression hitting the Island. In addition, they are the most capable to propose short and long-term solutions to the ongoing political and economic crisis.
The Coalition Transformation Into a National Reconstruction Alliance(NRA) & the Formation of a Pro Independence Congress
In a recent newspaper analysis, Ms. Rodriguez put forward a futurist scenario, where Bishop Vera’s Coalition become a NRA Party to be able to participate in the 2012 election against the corrupt NPP-PDP’s two party system. This new liberal-leftist alliance has a 10-point program, which is based in the Island struggle to regain its own sovereignty, which was taken away by the US Congress through the military occupation of Puerto Rico in 1898. Among the key point of the NRA program is the power to make our own trade accord with other foreign nations, including the US, Europe, Africa and Asia. We could also join the South American Common Market Union (UNASUR) and America’s Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA). The UNASUR and ALBA are two trade and economic alternatives to the US-led North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA), its affiliates in Central and South America and the Caribbean.
During the last year, Mari Bras has spearheaded a nation-wide campaign to forge an alliance among all the pro Independence groups through the creation of the Third Pro Independence Congress. Although this organizing drive is being torpedoed by the odd alliance between the conservative Puerto Rican Independence Party and the ultra-leftist Socialist Workers Movement, Mari Bras and his allies are still very optimist because the economic Depression will force a new realignment of all the political forces in the Island.
According to the former head of the PSP and founder of the 50 years-old weekly pro-Independence newspaper Claridad, the present task of a revolutionary living in the Island is to propose short-term and practical solutions to the people’s daily struggle, and in that way, “we get closer to our strategic goals.” This means supporting the proposal put forward by leaders of different political ideologies, which urged Gov. Fortuno to tax by 10% all US corporations doing business in the Island. This would solve our immediate financial crisis, and put back to work the 25,000 state workers, which have been lay-off during the last two month. This represents a creative way “to find real solutions in order to go through turbid times, like the present one, and thus, at last enter the XXI Century,” concluded Mari Bras in a recent analysis for Claridad.
Ivan Gutierrez del Arroyo can be reached at gutierrezdelarroyoivan@yahoo.com
Global Research Articles by Ivan Gutierrez del Arroyo
.
His Reward is with Him

Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. Rev. 22:12.
Our work here is soon to close, and every man will receive his reward according to his own labor. I was shown the saints' reward, the immortal inheritance, and saw that those who had endured the most for the truth's sake will not think they have had a hard time, but will count heaven cheap enough.
Every day bears its burden of record of unfulfilled duties, of neglect, of selfishness, of deception, of fraud, of overreaching. What an amount of evil works is accumulating for the final judgment! When Christ shall come, "His reward is with him, and his work before him," to render to every man according as his works have been. What a revelation will then be made! What confusion of face to some as the acts of their lives are revealed upon the pages of history. {Mar 312.2}
Every good and every wrong act, and its influence upon others, is traced out by the Searcher of hearts, to whom every secret is revealed. And the reward will be according to the motives which prompted the action.
The coming of Christ is near and hasteth greatly. The time in which to labor is short, and men and women are perishing. . . .
We need the converting power of God to take hold of us, that we may understand the needs of a perishing world. The burden of my message to you is: Get ready, get ready to meet the Lord. Trim your lamps, and let the light of truth shine forth into the byways and the hedges. There is a world to be warned of the near approach of the end of all things. . . .
Let us seek a new conversion. We need the presence of the Holy Spirit of God with us, that our hearts may be softened and that we may not bring a harsh spirit into the work. I pray that the Holy Spirit may take full possession of our hearts. Let us act like children of God who are looking to Him for counsel, ready to work out His plans wherever presented. God will be glorified by such a people, and those who witness our zeal will say: Amen and amen.
Our work here is soon to close, and every man will receive his reward according to his own labor. I was shown the saints' reward, the immortal inheritance, and saw that those who had endured the most for the truth's sake will not think they have had a hard time, but will count heaven cheap enough.
Every day bears its burden of record of unfulfilled duties, of neglect, of selfishness, of deception, of fraud, of overreaching. What an amount of evil works is accumulating for the final judgment! When Christ shall come, "His reward is with him, and his work before him," to render to every man according as his works have been. What a revelation will then be made! What confusion of face to some as the acts of their lives are revealed upon the pages of history. {Mar 312.2}
Every good and every wrong act, and its influence upon others, is traced out by the Searcher of hearts, to whom every secret is revealed. And the reward will be according to the motives which prompted the action.
The coming of Christ is near and hasteth greatly. The time in which to labor is short, and men and women are perishing. . . .
We need the converting power of God to take hold of us, that we may understand the needs of a perishing world. The burden of my message to you is: Get ready, get ready to meet the Lord. Trim your lamps, and let the light of truth shine forth into the byways and the hedges. There is a world to be warned of the near approach of the end of all things. . . .
Let us seek a new conversion. We need the presence of the Holy Spirit of God with us, that our hearts may be softened and that we may not bring a harsh spirit into the work. I pray that the Holy Spirit may take full possession of our hearts. Let us act like children of God who are looking to Him for counsel, ready to work out His plans wherever presented. God will be glorified by such a people, and those who witness our zeal will say: Amen and amen.
Maranatha, E. G. White, pp. 312.
.
Are we killing the prophets today?

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not! ........Luke 13:34.
During the Summer I noticed a new Thrift Store near home; I decided to visit the store to see what they offered. It was a Friday afternoon around 2:30 PM; Suddenly, I was told that the shop would close in a few minutes. So, I went to the owner and asked: "why are you closing so early"? He said: "We close at 3:00 PM on Fridays". Well, I looked at him, then I looked at the sign on the door and noticed that they were also closed on Saturdays, also. I then asked him if he kept the Sabbath; He said, yes. Immediately, I asked if perhaps he was an Adventist. He replied that he was. I then went to my car and brought back to the store some literature for the gentleman to read. When I returned he had gone to the rear of the building; So, I left him the literature with another lady who was at the front counter. I have since that day returned to the store a several times and have dropped off more literature.
Yesterday evening I ran some errands. It began to rain, and I ran to my car trying to get out of the rain; I then noticed that the Thrift Store was open; It was dark outside, it was about 5:30PM. I looked on my passenger side seat, and picked up a sermon CD by a Present Truth preaching Pastor; I proceeded to the store with the CD for the proprietor of the store. When I entered the store I saw the owner sitting at the counter (with his arms crossed), I greeted him and handed him the CD. We then spoke about Evangelism in the cities. I said that there were many people attempting to evangelize the cities, and not moving out of the cities. I asked him how long had it been since Ellen G. White had warned the Advent Remnant to move out of the cities? He answered that he didn't know why people believed that Mrs. White was a prophet; "She never said she was a prophet", he added; "If only Ms. White knew what people were doing with her writings now a days". He implied, why are they making such a fuss over her? I was shocked, but, not really surprised because many professed SDA's reject the prophet. In this they are a living reminder of the ones that slaughtered the prophets (for they would not heed their warnings).
.
When asked by Pilate what to do with Jesus they answered: "Crucify him, crucify him".
.
* Jesus spoke about the Jews (in Luke chapter 13) of his day who had killed the prophets, and were about to sacrifice the Son of God; The One who had sent the prophets to warn them to heed and repent.
.
.
Brethren, I believe that we are still killing the prophets today when we reject the Spirit of Prophecy; When we reject the Prophets who by rising early would write the Scriptures that we accept as Gospel Truth today; The living word of God. All these Prophets were shunned by their contemporaries; Many were dismembered as Isaiah was, yet, we have their testimonies (in the Holy Scriptures) to this day, their dedication to the message that God had entrusted them to deliver to His people.
Let us not imitate the killers of the prophets of the past by rejecting their counsels. Let's not reject the light that Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, the minor (Major) Prophets, John the Baptizer, The Reformers, and Ellen G. White have brought us. All these were lightly regarded when they lived. Can we afford to reject their testimonies and expect salvation?
As I heard the Thrift Store owner state that Sister White wasn't a Prophet, I thought about how to respond to such a statement. How could I answer a man who claimed to be a Seventh Day Adventist, when he rejected one of the original proponents of that faith? I answered him in a spontaneous manner; I don't know where these words came from? I said: "Now I know when your flaw comes from", and I walked out of the store.
I honestly believe that we are to separate ourselves (cease and desist) from those that blatantly reject the light that has brought us to where were are as Bible believing Christians expecting Jesus soon return and the fulfillment of all the prophecies. I will pray for that gentleman, but, I will not provide him any additional literature or media.
He has Moses and the Prophets! Let him believe them.
Arsenio.
Every soul which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed
Acts 3
1Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.
2And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;
3Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.
4And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.
5And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.
6Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
7And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
8And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
9And all the people saw him walking and praising God:
10And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.
11And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.
12And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
13The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
14But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
16And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
17And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
18But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Vatican Backs Obama's Global Agenda
Written by Cliff Kincaid
Monday, 12 October 2009 15:48

Another untold story is how, despite a disagreement over abortion, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Obama Administration agree on major aspects of so-called health care reform.
These topics are mostly taboo in the liberal and conservative media. Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions like a liberal/left-wing political lobby.
But the facts should not be much of a surprise. A majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite the fact that his pro-abortion record was well known, and when he was honored at Notre Dame, the premier Catholic University in the U.S., only about one-third of U.S. Catholic Bishops publicly objected.
The Nobel Committee's award to Obama has been viewed by many, on the left and right, as a surprise. But it makes perfect sense. The committee noted that Obama "has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play." All of this is true. Obama has built up the power of global institutions at the expense of the United States.
While the Vatican statement congratulating Obama was also seen by some as a surprise, it too makes sense. The Vatican expressed the hope that "this most important recognition will ultimately encourage such a difficult but fundamental commitment for the future of humanity, so that it might bring the expected results."
The "expected results" are evident when one considers that Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, had endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world government, in his recent encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." This world political authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to "manage the economy," bring about "timely disarmament," and ensure "food, security and peace."
However, researcher Carl Teichrib points out in a new study (PDF) that some Catholic writers are reluctant to face up to the Vatican's embrace of global government.
On domestic matters, it is frequently reported that the Roman Catholic Bishops in the U.S. oppose the Obama health care plan. In fact, the bishops believe that "health care is a basic human right," which is the premise of the Obama plan and it is driving the campaign to have the federal government take over the health care sector.
The Bishops disagree with Obama on tax-funding of abortion, but on other matters-such as health care for immigrants and the poor-the Bishops are to the left of the plans introduced by Congressional Democrats.
The Bishops also agree with the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats on what is euphemistically called "immigration reform." On October 8, Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick told the Senate that a new bill should help bring illegal aliens "out of the shadows" and give them permanent residency and citizenship. Such a bill figures to be one of the next major Obama initiatives.
Again, this is the Obama Administration position.
What's interesting is that you find the same Catholic personnel working on domestic and foreign policy issues.
For example, the executive committee on the Pax Christi national council includes figures such as Donna Toliver Grimes, a "Poverty Education and Outreach Manager" for the bishops who also serves on the staff of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). This is the entity that has poured millions of dollars into ACORN and related organizations over the years.
In an October 2 memorandum (PDF), Bishop Roger P. Morin acknowledged that the CCHD had also been funding several groups promoting public policy positions in violation of Catholic moral teaching. These were groups promoting homosexual rights and abortion. Morin claimed that the funding had been cut off.
However, Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, which uncovered the scandal, says that Morin's response is unsatisfactory and "factually deficient in several areas."
In response to one of my previous columns on the Catholic connection to ACORN, a conservative Catholic blog called CatholicCulture.org agreed with my point that some in the media are reluctant to raise the issue because they fear being accused of having an anti-Catholic bias. The blog said, however, that the matter must be thoroughly probed because while funding for ACORN has been suspended, the ties that CCHD has to other radical groups remain.
This has been confirmed by several sources. Obama "worked in several Catholic parishes, supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, helping to address severe joblessness and housing needs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods of Chicago," noted the group calling itself Catholic Democrats. Another group, Catholics for Obama, says that "President Barack Obama reflects core values of Catholic Social Teaching, which informs how we live our faith in the world."
The president of Catholic Democrats, Patrick Whelan, serves on the board of Catholics for Obama and as co-director of Pax Christi in Massachusetts.
Whelan also writes about Obama's meeting with the Pope. "Overall," he says, "it was clear that the common ground between the US Government and the Holy See-on poverty, the environment, international armed conflict and peace in the Middle East-far outweighed their differences."
Monday, 12 October 2009 15:48
Some pro-life Catholics are acting shocked that the Vatican warmly greeted the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who is pro-abortion. They don't seem to understand that the Vatican and Obama agree on most major international issues. This is the untold story-how Obama and the Vatican accept major ingredients of what has been called a New World Order.
Another untold story is how, despite a disagreement over abortion, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Obama Administration agree on major aspects of so-called health care reform.
These topics are mostly taboo in the liberal and conservative media. Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions like a liberal/left-wing political lobby.
But the facts should not be much of a surprise. A majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite the fact that his pro-abortion record was well known, and when he was honored at Notre Dame, the premier Catholic University in the U.S., only about one-third of U.S. Catholic Bishops publicly objected.
The Nobel Committee's award to Obama has been viewed by many, on the left and right, as a surprise. But it makes perfect sense. The committee noted that Obama "has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play." All of this is true. Obama has built up the power of global institutions at the expense of the United States.
While the Vatican statement congratulating Obama was also seen by some as a surprise, it too makes sense. The Vatican expressed the hope that "this most important recognition will ultimately encourage such a difficult but fundamental commitment for the future of humanity, so that it might bring the expected results."
The "expected results" are evident when one considers that Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, had endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world government, in his recent encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." This world political authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to "manage the economy," bring about "timely disarmament," and ensure "food, security and peace."
However, researcher Carl Teichrib points out in a new study (PDF) that some Catholic writers are reluctant to face up to the Vatican's embrace of global government.
On domestic matters, it is frequently reported that the Roman Catholic Bishops in the U.S. oppose the Obama health care plan. In fact, the bishops believe that "health care is a basic human right," which is the premise of the Obama plan and it is driving the campaign to have the federal government take over the health care sector.
The Bishops disagree with Obama on tax-funding of abortion, but on other matters-such as health care for immigrants and the poor-the Bishops are to the left of the plans introduced by Congressional Democrats.
The Bishops also agree with the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats on what is euphemistically called "immigration reform." On October 8, Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick told the Senate that a new bill should help bring illegal aliens "out of the shadows" and give them permanent residency and citizenship. Such a bill figures to be one of the next major Obama initiatives.
On the matter of a cap-and-trade energy bill, which would raise energy prices supposedly to combat global warming, the Catholic Bishops believe that the U.S. should adopt "mitigation and adaptation" approaches that mean "shifting behavior now to adjust to the near-term impacts of climate change." The Bishops explain that "Mitigation means cutting back on the emissions of harmful global warming pollutants and taking action to prevent further harm to the atmosphere."
Again, this is the Obama Administration position.
The Bishops have launched a "Climate Change Justice and Health Initiative" that promotes "legislative action," including "the transfer of such technologies and technical assistance that may be appropriate and helpful to developing countries in meeting the challenges of global climate change." This, too, is accepted and being promoted by the Obama Administration.
On the controversial matter of what to do in Afghanistan, left-wing pressure is being applied on the Obama Administration by Pax Christi, a Catholic group which insists that the U.S. military presence has "fueled the spiral of violence and further destabilized the region." It says that the solution lies in "reducing the U.S. military footprint" and favors ending the use of air strikes and drones on terrorist targets. Its "solution" is more diplomacy and foreign aid.
On an equally serious matter, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Dave Robinson, executive director of PaxChristi USA, recently signed a letter endorsing "the administration's intent to engage Iran diplomatically..." Robinson favors more talking with Iran, not more sanctions and certainly not military action against the fanatical regime.
What's interesting is that you find the same Catholic personnel working on domestic and foreign policy issues.
For example, the executive committee on the Pax Christi national council includes figures such as Donna Toliver Grimes, a "Poverty Education and Outreach Manager" for the bishops who also serves on the staff of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). This is the entity that has poured millions of dollars into ACORN and related organizations over the years.
Funding of ACORN was recently suspended because of corruption allegations.
In an October 2 memorandum (PDF), Bishop Roger P. Morin acknowledged that the CCHD had also been funding several groups promoting public policy positions in violation of Catholic moral teaching. These were groups promoting homosexual rights and abortion. Morin claimed that the funding had been cut off.
However, Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, which uncovered the scandal, says that Morin's response is unsatisfactory and "factually deficient in several areas."
In response to one of my previous columns on the Catholic connection to ACORN, a conservative Catholic blog called CatholicCulture.org agreed with my point that some in the media are reluctant to raise the issue because they fear being accused of having an anti-Catholic bias. The blog said, however, that the matter must be thoroughly probed because while funding for ACORN has been suspended, the ties that CCHD has to other radical groups remain.
My column also noted evidence that Obama's community organizing days in Chicago began in an organization funded by the Catholic Church.
This has been confirmed by several sources. Obama "worked in several Catholic parishes, supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, helping to address severe joblessness and housing needs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods of Chicago," noted the group calling itself Catholic Democrats. Another group, Catholics for Obama, says that "President Barack Obama reflects core values of Catholic Social Teaching, which informs how we live our faith in the world."
The president of Catholic Democrats, Patrick Whelan, serves on the board of Catholics for Obama and as co-director of Pax Christi in Massachusetts.
In the newsletter (PDF) of Pax Christi Massachusetts, Whelan writes about flying to Chicago in May of this year, "where I attended a reunion of Catholic Priests and community activists who hired a young Barack Obama in 1985." Whelan says that Obama, in his book, Dreams from My Father, "created a character named Marty Kaufmann, based on two real-life community organizers who attended this gathering on May 16, 2009."
Whelan also writes about Obama's meeting with the Pope. "Overall," he says, "it was clear that the common ground between the US Government and the Holy See-on poverty, the environment, international armed conflict and peace in the Middle East-far outweighed their differences."
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at Cliff.kincaid@aim.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
..
.
Prayer in gov't meetings causes controversy
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 10/26/2009 5:00:00 AM
A federal judge will soon rule in a North Carolina case on prayer in government meetings.

A federal judge will soon rule in a North Carolina case on prayer in government meetings.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against Forsyth County, North Carolina, two years ago for opening Commissioner meetings with prayer. Greensboro television station WFMY spoke with Katy Parker of the North Carolina ACLU, who points the suit to one incident.
Of this specific prayer, Parker says, "It was in Jesus' [Name]. They talked about the virgin birth. They talked about Jesus dying for all of us on the cross on Calvary." Parker says, "It was sectarian throughout the entire prayer."
One of the plaintiffs in the suit, Janet Joyner, finds that offering prayers in a sectarian manner "denies the individual the right to pray to whomever they want to pray or to however they address their transcendent understandings."
County Commissioner Gloria Whisenhut argues that the county policy is not sectarian as it involves all faiths. "We have Mormons [and] Jewish. We've had an array of different faiths," she establishes.
Don Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church, disagrees with the suit. "It just seems that we're concerned about the minority that's offended," he contends. "I'm offended as a Christian when they tell me that I can't pray in Jesus' name and they take my First Amendment right away from me when everything in this country works by majority rule."
Of this specific prayer, Parker says, "It was in Jesus' [Name]. They talked about the virgin birth. They talked about Jesus dying for all of us on the cross on Calvary." Parker says, "It was sectarian throughout the entire prayer."
One of the plaintiffs in the suit, Janet Joyner, finds that offering prayers in a sectarian manner "denies the individual the right to pray to whomever they want to pray or to however they address their transcendent understandings."
County Commissioner Gloria Whisenhut argues that the county policy is not sectarian as it involves all faiths. "We have Mormons [and] Jewish. We've had an array of different faiths," she establishes.
Don Baity, pastor of Berean Baptist Church, disagrees with the suit. "It just seems that we're concerned about the minority that's offended," he contends. "I'm offended as a Christian when they tell me that I can't pray in Jesus' name and they take my First Amendment right away from me when everything in this country works by majority rule."
As the county residents await the federal court decision, Mike Johnson of the Alliance Defense Fund says the stakes are high. He reports that this case is one of three which the ACLU has filed around the country in attempt to wipe out sectarian references in public invocations. (Listen to audio report)
"This is really a battle over whether or not someone can pray in Jesus' name -- and if the courts do not agree with us, then that will change more than 230 years of American history where we have recorded incidents of public prayer in public settings specifically to Jesus' name," says Johnson. "They claim it's unconstitutional, and of course we completely disagree."
Johnson further argues that the Board of Commissioners in Forsyth County permits people of other faiths to pray. "They do," he begins. "They have an open door policy where they literally send out an invitation letter annually to every religious leader in the community that's served, so that's an open-door policy. It's not an endorsement of Christianity."
The ACLU currently represents two individuals who say they feel they are in enemy territory when someone prays in the name of Jesus. A decision is expected in a few weeks.
.
.
.
Under Attack, Fed Chairman Studies Politics
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: November 10, 2009

It was alarming enough that the bill’s author was Representative Ron Paul, the quixotic Texas Republican whose new book, “End the Fed,” had just landed on the best-seller lists. Despite vigorous protests by Mr. Bernanke, nearly 300 House lawmakers and 30 senators had endorsed Mr. Paul’s bill.
But when he sat down shortly after 8 a.m. on Oct. 1 at the Rayburn House Office Building for coffee and muffins with Representative Barney Frank, the rumpled and wisecracking chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, he took in some blunt advice.
Voters had become suspicious and unnerved by the Fed because of its trillion-dollar efforts to bail out the financial system, Mr. Frank warned. If the Fed really wanted to survive the disgruntlement in both parties, he continued, Mr. Bernanke would have to step back and let him devise a compromise.
Reluctantly, the Fed chairman agreed to reduce his own visibility on the issue and let Mr. Frank take the lead.
It was just one example of how the Fed has been forced to scramble as its power comes under more fire than at any time in decades.
On Tuesday, a new threat opened up: Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, declared that the Fed had been an “abysmal failure” at regulation. He introduced a bill that would strip virtually all of its power to regulate banks, including financial institution considered too big to fail.
There will be a fight. Mr. Bernanke and the Fed has powerful political supporters, from lawmakers like Mr. Frank and President Obama. But the Fed chairman is being forced to nurture those ties as never before and to carefully map out which battles are worth fighting.
“Ben Bernanke turns out to have better political instincts than anybody thought,” Mr. Frank said in an interview last week. “They accept the fact that I know what I’m doing up here.”
On one front, the Fed faces populist anger from both left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans about its power and secrecy. At the same time, officials are locked in brutal but arcane battles about who should oversee Wall Street and big banks as Congress tries to pass a sweeping overhaul of financial regulation.
Last summer, the central bank hired an experienced Democratic hand and former lobbyist, Linda Robertson, to help deal with members of Congress. Mr. Bernanke alone has met privately with about 40 senators and many House members in the last few months, sometimes to dissect arcane policy issues and sometimes just to explain what he does in plain English.
At one recent meeting, Senator Sherrod Brown challenged Mr. Bernanke’s bona fides as a regular guy by giving him a pop quiz on baseball statistics. Mr. Bernanke, a passionate fan, passed.
Mindful that Democrats now control the White House and Congress, Mr. Bernanke put up virtually no opposition to President Obama’s proposal for a new consumer agency that would take over the Fed’s authority over consumer lending issues. Similarly, he avoided a bruising turf battle by agreeing that the Fed would share responsibility with other regulators to monitor systemic financial risk.
But Fed officials have been steely in protecting their two top priorities: the Fed’s political independence on monetary policy and the Fed’s role as undisputed overseer of financial institutions deemed “too big to fail.”
Mr. Bernanke took over the Fed nearly four years ago with less political experience than his predecessor, Alan Greenspan. And because he was forced to bail out companies and credit markets in such visible ways, Mr. Bernanke has enjoyed little of the mystique and distance that Mr. Greenspan used to his advantage.
No fight illustrates Mr. Bernanke’s political challenge better than the one over Mr. Paul’s bill to audit the Fed.
Mr. Paul’s bill would require the Government Accountability Office, an arm of the Congress, to complete a wide-ranging assessment of the Fed’s financial operations by the end of 2010. The audit would delve into bailouts of individual firms, short-term loans to banks, currency swaps with foreign central banks and the Fed’s effort to prop up mortgage lending by purchasing $1.25 trillion in mortgage-related securities.
Mr. Bernanke initially reacted to the bill in almost apocalyptic terms. The G.A.O. audits, he told a House hearing in late June, could lead to a Congressional “takeover” of monetary policy that would be “highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation.”
That did not go over well with many lawmakers, who were competing to describe the Fed in dark and conspiratorial tones.
Senator Jim DeMint, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, denounced the Fed on the Senate floor in July as an “unelected central bank” that enjoyed a “monopoly over the flow of our money” and operated in “almost complete secrecy.”
Senator Bernie Sanders, a left-leaning independent from Vermont who sponsored a Senate version of Mr. Paul’s bill, attacked the Fed for being beholden mainly to Wall Street.
“People are frightened,” Mr. Sanders said. “How do you explain to them that the Fed has spent $2 trillion to help many of the same banks that got us into this crisis in the first place?”
As the summer wore on, even centrist lawmakers were getting impatient with Mr. Bernanke.
Fed officials say they were alarmed, but focused on making their case in private rather than in public. Mr. Bernanke met privately with dozens of House and Senate members, even taking calls at home on weekends, and won praise for his willingness to listen and answer their questions.
“The best weapon the Fed has is Bernanke himself,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.
What Mr. Bernanke insisted on, and what Mr. Frank vowed to prevent, was Congressional interference in Fed deliberations over monetary policy.
But whenever discussion got more specific, Fed officials insisted that monetary policy extended to many if not most of the Fed’s emergency credit programs.
Mr. Frank said he would “wall off” deliberations on basic monetary policy, and delay the release of information about the Fed’s financial operations to prevent traders from capitalizing on its moves.
Exactly what that means in practice remains unclear. Mr. Paul says he is delighted that his bill has gotten so far. But details matter, and Fed officials say they are quietly confident details will break their way.
Published: November 10, 2009
Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News
Representative Barney Frank, left, said of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, right: “Ben Bernanke turns out to have better political instincts than anybody thought.”
Representative Barney Frank, left, said of Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, right: “Ben Bernanke turns out to have better political instincts than anybody thought.”
For months, he had warned — without anyone on Capitol Hill appearing to listen — that a seemingly innocuous bill to let Congress “audit” the Fed would gravely threaten the central bank’s independence.
It was alarming enough that the bill’s author was Representative Ron Paul, the quixotic Texas Republican whose new book, “End the Fed,” had just landed on the best-seller lists. Despite vigorous protests by Mr. Bernanke, nearly 300 House lawmakers and 30 senators had endorsed Mr. Paul’s bill.
But when he sat down shortly after 8 a.m. on Oct. 1 at the Rayburn House Office Building for coffee and muffins with Representative Barney Frank, the rumpled and wisecracking chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, he took in some blunt advice.
Voters had become suspicious and unnerved by the Fed because of its trillion-dollar efforts to bail out the financial system, Mr. Frank warned. If the Fed really wanted to survive the disgruntlement in both parties, he continued, Mr. Bernanke would have to step back and let him devise a compromise.
Reluctantly, the Fed chairman agreed to reduce his own visibility on the issue and let Mr. Frank take the lead.
It was just one example of how the Fed has been forced to scramble as its power comes under more fire than at any time in decades.
On Tuesday, a new threat opened up: Senator Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, declared that the Fed had been an “abysmal failure” at regulation. He introduced a bill that would strip virtually all of its power to regulate banks, including financial institution considered too big to fail.
There will be a fight. Mr. Bernanke and the Fed has powerful political supporters, from lawmakers like Mr. Frank and President Obama. But the Fed chairman is being forced to nurture those ties as never before and to carefully map out which battles are worth fighting.
“Ben Bernanke turns out to have better political instincts than anybody thought,” Mr. Frank said in an interview last week. “They accept the fact that I know what I’m doing up here.”
On one front, the Fed faces populist anger from both left-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans about its power and secrecy. At the same time, officials are locked in brutal but arcane battles about who should oversee Wall Street and big banks as Congress tries to pass a sweeping overhaul of financial regulation.
Last summer, the central bank hired an experienced Democratic hand and former lobbyist, Linda Robertson, to help deal with members of Congress. Mr. Bernanke alone has met privately with about 40 senators and many House members in the last few months, sometimes to dissect arcane policy issues and sometimes just to explain what he does in plain English.
At one recent meeting, Senator Sherrod Brown challenged Mr. Bernanke’s bona fides as a regular guy by giving him a pop quiz on baseball statistics. Mr. Bernanke, a passionate fan, passed.
Mindful that Democrats now control the White House and Congress, Mr. Bernanke put up virtually no opposition to President Obama’s proposal for a new consumer agency that would take over the Fed’s authority over consumer lending issues. Similarly, he avoided a bruising turf battle by agreeing that the Fed would share responsibility with other regulators to monitor systemic financial risk.
But Fed officials have been steely in protecting their two top priorities: the Fed’s political independence on monetary policy and the Fed’s role as undisputed overseer of financial institutions deemed “too big to fail.”
Mr. Bernanke took over the Fed nearly four years ago with less political experience than his predecessor, Alan Greenspan. And because he was forced to bail out companies and credit markets in such visible ways, Mr. Bernanke has enjoyed little of the mystique and distance that Mr. Greenspan used to his advantage.
No fight illustrates Mr. Bernanke’s political challenge better than the one over Mr. Paul’s bill to audit the Fed.
The maneuvering is still under way, involving intricate negotiations outside of public view. But, aided by the pledge of help from Mr. Frank and backing from the administration, Fed officials cautiously predict they will get what they want.
Mr. Paul’s bill would require the Government Accountability Office, an arm of the Congress, to complete a wide-ranging assessment of the Fed’s financial operations by the end of 2010. The audit would delve into bailouts of individual firms, short-term loans to banks, currency swaps with foreign central banks and the Fed’s effort to prop up mortgage lending by purchasing $1.25 trillion in mortgage-related securities.
Mr. Bernanke initially reacted to the bill in almost apocalyptic terms. The G.A.O. audits, he told a House hearing in late June, could lead to a Congressional “takeover” of monetary policy that would be “highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation.”
That did not go over well with many lawmakers, who were competing to describe the Fed in dark and conspiratorial tones.
Senator Jim DeMint, a conservative Republican from South Carolina, denounced the Fed on the Senate floor in July as an “unelected central bank” that enjoyed a “monopoly over the flow of our money” and operated in “almost complete secrecy.”
Senator Bernie Sanders, a left-leaning independent from Vermont who sponsored a Senate version of Mr. Paul’s bill, attacked the Fed for being beholden mainly to Wall Street.
“People are frightened,” Mr. Sanders said. “How do you explain to them that the Fed has spent $2 trillion to help many of the same banks that got us into this crisis in the first place?”
As the summer wore on, even centrist lawmakers were getting impatient with Mr. Bernanke.
“What he failed to do was convince me that this would somehow damage the Fed,” said Representative Dan Maffei, a centrist Democrat from Syracuse who co-sponsored Mr. Paul’s bill. Representative Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, a senior Democrat on the financial services committee who is sympathetic to the Fed, said the popular anger became too deep to ignore.
By mid-July, Mr. Frank had begun to agree. Meeting privately with the Fed chairman that month, Mr. Frank warned that he might have to embrace a version of Mr. Paul’s bill. By September, he had begun exploring possible compromises.
By mid-July, Mr. Frank had begun to agree. Meeting privately with the Fed chairman that month, Mr. Frank warned that he might have to embrace a version of Mr. Paul’s bill. By September, he had begun exploring possible compromises.
Fed officials say they were alarmed, but focused on making their case in private rather than in public. Mr. Bernanke met privately with dozens of House and Senate members, even taking calls at home on weekends, and won praise for his willingness to listen and answer their questions.
“The best weapon the Fed has is Bernanke himself,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.
What Mr. Bernanke insisted on, and what Mr. Frank vowed to prevent, was Congressional interference in Fed deliberations over monetary policy.
But whenever discussion got more specific, Fed officials insisted that monetary policy extended to many if not most of the Fed’s emergency credit programs.
Mr. Frank said he would “wall off” deliberations on basic monetary policy, and delay the release of information about the Fed’s financial operations to prevent traders from capitalizing on its moves.
Exactly what that means in practice remains unclear. Mr. Paul says he is delighted that his bill has gotten so far. But details matter, and Fed officials say they are quietly confident details will break their way.
A version of this article appeared in print on November 11, 2009, on page A1 of the New York edition.
.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/business/11fed.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
.
Vatican Seeks Signs of Alien Life
Tuesday, November 10, 2009

AP
In this file photo, Pope Benedict XVI admires the sky above Sydney, Australia.
In this file photo, Pope Benedict XVI admires the sky above Sydney, Australia.
Four hundred years after it locked up Galileo for challenging the view that the Earth was the center of the universe, the Vatican has called in experts to study the possibility of extraterrestrial alien life and its implication for the Catholic Church.
"The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.
Funes, a Jesuit priest, presented the results Tuesday of a five-day conference that gathered astronomers, physicists, biologists and other experts to discuss the budding field of astrobiology — the study of the origin of life and its existence elsewhere in the cosmos.
Funes said the possibility of alien life raises "many philosophical and theological implications" but added that the gathering was mainly focused on the scientific perspective and how different disciplines can be used to explore the issue.
Chris Impey, an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona, said it was appropriate that the Vatican would host such a meeting.
"Both science and religion posit life as a special outcome of a vast and mostly inhospitable universe," he told a news conference Tuesday. "There is a rich middle ground for dialogue between the practitioners of astrobiology and those who seek to understand the meaning of our existence in a biological universe."
Thirty scientists, including non-Catholics, from the U.S., France, Britain, Switzerland, Italy and Chile attended the conference, called to explore among other issues "whether sentient life forms exist on other worlds."
Funes set the stage for the conference a year ago when he discussed the possibility of alien life in an interview given prominence in the Vatican's daily newspaper.
The Church of Rome's views have shifted radically through the centuries since Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic in 1600 for speculating, among other ideas, that other worlds could be inhabited.
Scientists have discovered hundreds of planets outside our solar system — including 32 new ones announced recently by the European Space Agency. Impey said the discovery of alien life may be only a few years away.
"If biology is not unique to the Earth, or life elsewhere differs bio-chemically from our version, or we ever make contact with an intelligent species in the vastness of space, the implications for our self-image will be profound," he said.
This is not the first time the Vatican has explored the issue of extraterrestrials: In 2005, its observatory brought together top researchers in the field for similar discussions.
In the interview last year, Funes told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that believing the universe may host aliens, even intelligent ones, does not contradict a faith in God.
"How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?" Funes said in that interview.
"Just as there is a multitude of creatures on Earth, there could be other beings, even intelligent ones, created by God. This does not contradict our faith, because we cannot put limits on God's creative freedom."
Funes maintained that if intelligent beings were discovered, they would also be considered "part of creation."
The Roman Catholic Church's relationship with science has come a long way since Galileo was tried as a heretic in 1633 and forced to recant his finding that the Earth revolves around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.
Today top clergy, including Funes, openly endorse scientific ideas like the Big Bang theory as a reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.
Earlier this year, the Vatican also sponsored a conference on evolution to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."
The event snubbed proponents of alternative theories, like creationism and intelligent design, which see a higher being rather than the undirected process of natural selection behind the evolution of species.
Still, there are divisions on the issues within the Catholic Church and within other religions, with some favoring creationism or intelligent design that could make it difficult to accept the concept of alien life.
Working with scientists to explore fundamental questions that are of interest to religion is in line with the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI, who has made strengthening the relationship between faith and reason a key aspect of his papacy.
Recent popes have been working to overcome the accusation that the church was hostile to science — a reputation grounded in the Galileo affair.
In 1992, Pope John Paul II declared the ruling against the astronomer was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."
The Vatican Museums opened an exhibit last month marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's first celestial observations.
Tommaso Maccacaro, president of Italy's national institute of astrophysics, said at the exhibit's Oct. 13 opening that astronomy has had a major impact on the way we perceive ourselves.
"It was astronomical observations that let us understand that Earth (and man) don't have a privileged position or role in the universe," he said. "I ask myself what tools will we use in the next 400 years, and I ask what revolutions of understanding they'll bring about, like resolving the mystery of our apparent cosmic solitude."
The Vatican Observatory has also been at the forefront of efforts to bridge the gap between religion and science. Its scientist-clerics have generated top-notch research and its meteorite collection is considered one of the world's best.
The observatory, founded by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, is based in Castel Gandolfo, a lakeside town in the hills outside Rome where the pope has his summer residence. It also conducts research at an observatory at the University of Arizona, in Tucson.
"The questions of life's origins and of whether life exists elsewhere in the universe are very suitable and deserve serious consideration," said the Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, an astronomer and director of the Vatican Observatory.
Funes, a Jesuit priest, presented the results Tuesday of a five-day conference that gathered astronomers, physicists, biologists and other experts to discuss the budding field of astrobiology — the study of the origin of life and its existence elsewhere in the cosmos.
Funes said the possibility of alien life raises "many philosophical and theological implications" but added that the gathering was mainly focused on the scientific perspective and how different disciplines can be used to explore the issue.
Chris Impey, an astronomy professor at the University of Arizona, said it was appropriate that the Vatican would host such a meeting.
"Both science and religion posit life as a special outcome of a vast and mostly inhospitable universe," he told a news conference Tuesday. "There is a rich middle ground for dialogue between the practitioners of astrobiology and those who seek to understand the meaning of our existence in a biological universe."
Thirty scientists, including non-Catholics, from the U.S., France, Britain, Switzerland, Italy and Chile attended the conference, called to explore among other issues "whether sentient life forms exist on other worlds."
Funes set the stage for the conference a year ago when he discussed the possibility of alien life in an interview given prominence in the Vatican's daily newspaper.
The Church of Rome's views have shifted radically through the centuries since Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic in 1600 for speculating, among other ideas, that other worlds could be inhabited.
Scientists have discovered hundreds of planets outside our solar system — including 32 new ones announced recently by the European Space Agency. Impey said the discovery of alien life may be only a few years away.
"If biology is not unique to the Earth, or life elsewhere differs bio-chemically from our version, or we ever make contact with an intelligent species in the vastness of space, the implications for our self-image will be profound," he said.
This is not the first time the Vatican has explored the issue of extraterrestrials: In 2005, its observatory brought together top researchers in the field for similar discussions.
In the interview last year, Funes told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that believing the universe may host aliens, even intelligent ones, does not contradict a faith in God.
"How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?" Funes said in that interview.
"Just as there is a multitude of creatures on Earth, there could be other beings, even intelligent ones, created by God. This does not contradict our faith, because we cannot put limits on God's creative freedom."
Funes maintained that if intelligent beings were discovered, they would also be considered "part of creation."
The Roman Catholic Church's relationship with science has come a long way since Galileo was tried as a heretic in 1633 and forced to recant his finding that the Earth revolves around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.
Today top clergy, including Funes, openly endorse scientific ideas like the Big Bang theory as a reasonable explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.
Earlier this year, the Vatican also sponsored a conference on evolution to mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species."
The event snubbed proponents of alternative theories, like creationism and intelligent design, which see a higher being rather than the undirected process of natural selection behind the evolution of species.
Still, there are divisions on the issues within the Catholic Church and within other religions, with some favoring creationism or intelligent design that could make it difficult to accept the concept of alien life.
Working with scientists to explore fundamental questions that are of interest to religion is in line with the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI, who has made strengthening the relationship between faith and reason a key aspect of his papacy.
Recent popes have been working to overcome the accusation that the church was hostile to science — a reputation grounded in the Galileo affair.
In 1992, Pope John Paul II declared the ruling against the astronomer was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."
The Vatican Museums opened an exhibit last month marking the 400th anniversary of Galileo's first celestial observations.
Tommaso Maccacaro, president of Italy's national institute of astrophysics, said at the exhibit's Oct. 13 opening that astronomy has had a major impact on the way we perceive ourselves.
"It was astronomical observations that let us understand that Earth (and man) don't have a privileged position or role in the universe," he said. "I ask myself what tools will we use in the next 400 years, and I ask what revolutions of understanding they'll bring about, like resolving the mystery of our apparent cosmic solitude."
The Vatican Observatory has also been at the forefront of efforts to bridge the gap between religion and science. Its scientist-clerics have generated top-notch research and its meteorite collection is considered one of the world's best.
The observatory, founded by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, is based in Castel Gandolfo, a lakeside town in the hills outside Rome where the pope has his summer residence. It also conducts research at an observatory at the University of Arizona, in Tucson.
Note: Bolds and Highlights added.
.
THE TROUBLE WITH WAR GAMES

The first video game about the Iraq war provoked a firestorm of its own. A realistic game about the second invasion of Fallujah might be a bit too ambitious, writes Benjamin Pauker ...
Special to MORE INTELLIGENT LIFE
War is a messy business, but it also makes for good entertainment—eventually.
In the six years since the Iraq war began, there have been several dozen films and a handful of television shows about the conflict. Some, like “In the Valley of Elah” and “Generation Kill”, have been good, but most have been poor—either blatantly anti-war (Robert Redford’s “Lions for Lambs”), deceptively shallow (Ridley Scott’s “Body of Lies”) or simply melodramatic (Kimberly Peirce’s “Stop-Loss”).
On the whole, fictionalised dramas about the war have earned little controversy and performed extraordinarily poorly. The execrable “Home of the Brave” (2006), for example, which starred Samuel L. Jackson, 50 Cent and Jessica Biel as soldiers grappling with physical and psychological injuries sustained in the war, cost an estimated $12m to make and grossed a mere $51,708 in America.
None of this helps to explain the furore over the first video game about the American experience in Iraq.
Konami, a game publisher, and Atomic Games, a game developer, announced in April that they planned to release “Six Days in Fallujah”, a third-person shooter based on the bloody second invasion of Fallujah in 2004. Meant to feel harrowingly realistic, the game puts players into the boots of American Marine Corps soldiers as they fight insurgents in the dusty streets of Iraq. Atomic Games reportedly consulted with both insurgents and Marine veterans to recreate the six-day assault, described by many as the heaviest urban combat in recent memory.
In its “First Look” review of the “ultrarealistic” game, GameSpot had much to praise:
With a focus on urban combat, and all of the complications that fighting in close quarters and among civilians brings with it, the developers at Atomic Games have created a new game engine to power the action in Six Days. The hallmark of the new engine is destruction; everything from individual bricks to entire buildings will be candidates for destruction in the game, a fact that opens up entirely new avenues of strategy when taking to the streets in the hunt for insurgents.
"Cool", said the boy in me. While I wouldn’t describe myself as an ardent video gamer, playing them remains an occasional guilty pleasure. I’m still amazed by how real games look and feel these days. When I was nine, my father returned from a business trip to Hong Kong with an Intellivision console, billed as the most advanced gaming system of the time. I recall blissful hours playing “Major League Baseball”, a game made up of right angles and primary colours, with sound effects that hovered somewhere between "The Three Stooges" and flatulence.
Check out a current baseball video game, and you’d be forgiven for thinking you’re watching a television broadcast of an actual contest. Perhaps that’s why killing aliens or zombies—popular fare in many of today’s shooter games—seems so tedious to me. Granted, I’m far too old for any of this, but if the technology exists, why not explore more adventurous and controversial territory? Atomic’s “Six Days” is certainly bold, possibly foolhardy and probably insensitive, but if they can pull off the claimed realism, I’m interested.
Popular response to the announcement, however, was decidedly mixed. Avid gamers were mostly excited by the planned release, but public opinion tended towards shock, if not outrage. A group representing the families of American soldiers who have been killed in Iraq condemned the game for trivialising the conflict. In a damning interview in the Daily Mail, the father of a British soldier killed in the battle called it “crass and insensitive.” Too soon, said the chorus, too soon.
Konami, the game's distributor, balked and summarily pulled out of the project only two weeks after the big announcement. "After seeing the reaction to the video game in the United States and hearing opinions sent through phone calls and e-mail, we decided several days ago not to sell it," a Konami rep told the Asahi Shimbun.
I spoke with Peter Tamte, the president of Atomic, and asked him if he expected this firestorm. “Well, we knew there would be some controversy,” he chuckled, then exhaled. “But no, not like this.” Konami’s decision to pull the release reportedly caught Atomic by surprise.
What is it, then, that so inflamed public opinion? Perhaps it’s the fact that the video game is based on an ongoing war. The 2004 invasion wasn't so long ago, and for some the wounds are still fresh.
Of the hundreds of studio films and television shows that have dramatised war, few have ever attempted to tackle the complexities of one that was still in progress. Fewer still have done it well. The problem, of course, is perspective. The films that burst forth from Hollywood during the early days of the second world war were consistently of the rah-rah variety. It is for good reason that no one remembers "Stand By for Action", a film made in 1943 about naval battles in the Pacific. But the more reflective "From Here to Eternity" (1953) and "The Great Escape" (1963) have stood the test of time.
John Wayne’s controversial pro-war vehicle “The Green Berets” was one of only a handful of popular films produced during the Vietnam war. When it was released in 1968 Roger Ebert, a film critic, gave it zero stars, and eviscerated it for being “offensive” and “dishonest.” More nuanced efforts, such as “The Deer Hunter” and “Apocalypse Now,” came ten years later.
Like Vietnam, Iraq is a complicated and unpopular conflict, and few seem to be ready to see it dramatised on screen. Back in early 2005, Stephen Boccho, a vaunted television producer ("NYPD Blue", "LA Law"), released “Over There”, billing it as the first serial television drama about an ongoing conflict. It earned some fanfare but little critical acclaim. No one watched it: the show was cancelled after only 13 episodes.
Supposedly there are only two types of stories: a stranger comes to town, and a man goes on a journey. The Iraq war is both, but everyone hates the stranger, and the journey was a dumb idea to begin with. Do you want to see that film? American audiences don’t--at least not yet--and for good reason.
But why not a video game? You can’t really blame the developers at Atomic Games for trying. There are dozens of extremely popular and profitable console video games about modern warfare. Even Konami, the erstwhile distributor of "Six Days in Fallujah", sells the remarkable “Metal Gear Solid 4”, which begins with its protagonist caught in a Middle Eastern firefight. Grab your gun and you’re off, sniping and slicing the throats of sinister private military corporation employees.
It’s easy to understand the small leap to pixellating the Fallujah invasion. “Six Days” is meant to capture the visceral feel of urban warfare, with morally complex scenarios and documentary footage to heighten the realism. “Every aspect of the game is based on a true story,” says Tamte. "We want—and it’s very hard to do this and it hasn’t really been done too well before—is to make people feel what it was like to be there. And video games are among the best ways to explain what it’s like to be a Marine in intense, urban warfare.”
Tamte notes that just like in real warfare, characters in the game will have to make “split-second moral choices,” though he wouldn’t elaborate on what exactly that means. (I’ll hazard a guess: collateral damage.) Herein lies a key problem: video games are not yet sophisticated enough to dramatise the sometimes awful consequences of certain choices (though this is starting to change), and they are just not built to evoke the terrible costs of war.
Say, for example, a player accidentally--or wilfully--kills a few civilian families by calling in an air raid: what is the punishment? Remorse? A cut-scene of a court martial? And what about injuries, or death? How could such things be represented meaningfully if they fail to capture the bigger picture?
Our feelings about this war may be just too complicated for what is meant to be an entertaining simulation. “The word ‘game’ is a problem for us,” Tamte acknowledges. If it ever sees light of day, “Six Days” will be judged not for its high-minded ideals, but for their execution. On this, it will inevitably fail. The essential problem is that part of the fun of video games, and third- or first-person shooters in particular, is the superhero aspect: the ability to wage war almost single-handedly, racking up a staggering body count. This forces game programmers to choose the simpler "realism" of intense urban combat over the more difficult task: conveying the folly and futility of war. Want realism? Read Dexter Filkin's book "The Forever War". Cowering for hours on a rooftop and then watching a friend get shot in the face just isn't fun.
Still, Atomic Games may be on to something. Recently I asked Ned Parker, a long-time Baghdad correspondent, what he thought of "Six Days". “It sounds kind of crazy,” he allowed, “but the last time I embedded with troops in Iraq, as soon as they got back to base, all they did was get on their laptops and play war games.”
Picture credit: "Six Days in Fallujah", Atomic Games
(Benjamin Pauker is managing editor of World Policy Journal.)
Special to MORE INTELLIGENT LIFE
War is a messy business, but it also makes for good entertainment—eventually.
In the six years since the Iraq war began, there have been several dozen films and a handful of television shows about the conflict. Some, like “In the Valley of Elah” and “Generation Kill”, have been good, but most have been poor—either blatantly anti-war (Robert Redford’s “Lions for Lambs”), deceptively shallow (Ridley Scott’s “Body of Lies”) or simply melodramatic (Kimberly Peirce’s “Stop-Loss”).
On the whole, fictionalised dramas about the war have earned little controversy and performed extraordinarily poorly. The execrable “Home of the Brave” (2006), for example, which starred Samuel L. Jackson, 50 Cent and Jessica Biel as soldiers grappling with physical and psychological injuries sustained in the war, cost an estimated $12m to make and grossed a mere $51,708 in America.
None of this helps to explain the furore over the first video game about the American experience in Iraq.
Konami, a game publisher, and Atomic Games, a game developer, announced in April that they planned to release “Six Days in Fallujah”, a third-person shooter based on the bloody second invasion of Fallujah in 2004. Meant to feel harrowingly realistic, the game puts players into the boots of American Marine Corps soldiers as they fight insurgents in the dusty streets of Iraq. Atomic Games reportedly consulted with both insurgents and Marine veterans to recreate the six-day assault, described by many as the heaviest urban combat in recent memory.
In its “First Look” review of the “ultrarealistic” game, GameSpot had much to praise:
With a focus on urban combat, and all of the complications that fighting in close quarters and among civilians brings with it, the developers at Atomic Games have created a new game engine to power the action in Six Days. The hallmark of the new engine is destruction; everything from individual bricks to entire buildings will be candidates for destruction in the game, a fact that opens up entirely new avenues of strategy when taking to the streets in the hunt for insurgents.
"Cool", said the boy in me. While I wouldn’t describe myself as an ardent video gamer, playing them remains an occasional guilty pleasure. I’m still amazed by how real games look and feel these days. When I was nine, my father returned from a business trip to Hong Kong with an Intellivision console, billed as the most advanced gaming system of the time. I recall blissful hours playing “Major League Baseball”, a game made up of right angles and primary colours, with sound effects that hovered somewhere between "The Three Stooges" and flatulence.
Check out a current baseball video game, and you’d be forgiven for thinking you’re watching a television broadcast of an actual contest. Perhaps that’s why killing aliens or zombies—popular fare in many of today’s shooter games—seems so tedious to me. Granted, I’m far too old for any of this, but if the technology exists, why not explore more adventurous and controversial territory? Atomic’s “Six Days” is certainly bold, possibly foolhardy and probably insensitive, but if they can pull off the claimed realism, I’m interested.
Popular response to the announcement, however, was decidedly mixed. Avid gamers were mostly excited by the planned release, but public opinion tended towards shock, if not outrage. A group representing the families of American soldiers who have been killed in Iraq condemned the game for trivialising the conflict. In a damning interview in the Daily Mail, the father of a British soldier killed in the battle called it “crass and insensitive.” Too soon, said the chorus, too soon.
Konami, the game's distributor, balked and summarily pulled out of the project only two weeks after the big announcement. "After seeing the reaction to the video game in the United States and hearing opinions sent through phone calls and e-mail, we decided several days ago not to sell it," a Konami rep told the Asahi Shimbun.
I spoke with Peter Tamte, the president of Atomic, and asked him if he expected this firestorm. “Well, we knew there would be some controversy,” he chuckled, then exhaled. “But no, not like this.” Konami’s decision to pull the release reportedly caught Atomic by surprise.
What is it, then, that so inflamed public opinion? Perhaps it’s the fact that the video game is based on an ongoing war. The 2004 invasion wasn't so long ago, and for some the wounds are still fresh.
Of the hundreds of studio films and television shows that have dramatised war, few have ever attempted to tackle the complexities of one that was still in progress. Fewer still have done it well. The problem, of course, is perspective. The films that burst forth from Hollywood during the early days of the second world war were consistently of the rah-rah variety. It is for good reason that no one remembers "Stand By for Action", a film made in 1943 about naval battles in the Pacific. But the more reflective "From Here to Eternity" (1953) and "The Great Escape" (1963) have stood the test of time.
John Wayne’s controversial pro-war vehicle “The Green Berets” was one of only a handful of popular films produced during the Vietnam war. When it was released in 1968 Roger Ebert, a film critic, gave it zero stars, and eviscerated it for being “offensive” and “dishonest.” More nuanced efforts, such as “The Deer Hunter” and “Apocalypse Now,” came ten years later.
Like Vietnam, Iraq is a complicated and unpopular conflict, and few seem to be ready to see it dramatised on screen. Back in early 2005, Stephen Boccho, a vaunted television producer ("NYPD Blue", "LA Law"), released “Over There”, billing it as the first serial television drama about an ongoing conflict. It earned some fanfare but little critical acclaim. No one watched it: the show was cancelled after only 13 episodes.
Supposedly there are only two types of stories: a stranger comes to town, and a man goes on a journey. The Iraq war is both, but everyone hates the stranger, and the journey was a dumb idea to begin with. Do you want to see that film? American audiences don’t--at least not yet--and for good reason.
But why not a video game? You can’t really blame the developers at Atomic Games for trying. There are dozens of extremely popular and profitable console video games about modern warfare. Even Konami, the erstwhile distributor of "Six Days in Fallujah", sells the remarkable “Metal Gear Solid 4”, which begins with its protagonist caught in a Middle Eastern firefight. Grab your gun and you’re off, sniping and slicing the throats of sinister private military corporation employees.
It’s easy to understand the small leap to pixellating the Fallujah invasion. “Six Days” is meant to capture the visceral feel of urban warfare, with morally complex scenarios and documentary footage to heighten the realism. “Every aspect of the game is based on a true story,” says Tamte. "We want—and it’s very hard to do this and it hasn’t really been done too well before—is to make people feel what it was like to be there. And video games are among the best ways to explain what it’s like to be a Marine in intense, urban warfare.”
Tamte notes that just like in real warfare, characters in the game will have to make “split-second moral choices,” though he wouldn’t elaborate on what exactly that means. (I’ll hazard a guess: collateral damage.) Herein lies a key problem: video games are not yet sophisticated enough to dramatise the sometimes awful consequences of certain choices (though this is starting to change), and they are just not built to evoke the terrible costs of war.
Say, for example, a player accidentally--or wilfully--kills a few civilian families by calling in an air raid: what is the punishment? Remorse? A cut-scene of a court martial? And what about injuries, or death? How could such things be represented meaningfully if they fail to capture the bigger picture?
Our feelings about this war may be just too complicated for what is meant to be an entertaining simulation. “The word ‘game’ is a problem for us,” Tamte acknowledges. If it ever sees light of day, “Six Days” will be judged not for its high-minded ideals, but for their execution. On this, it will inevitably fail. The essential problem is that part of the fun of video games, and third- or first-person shooters in particular, is the superhero aspect: the ability to wage war almost single-handedly, racking up a staggering body count. This forces game programmers to choose the simpler "realism" of intense urban combat over the more difficult task: conveying the folly and futility of war. Want realism? Read Dexter Filkin's book "The Forever War". Cowering for hours on a rooftop and then watching a friend get shot in the face just isn't fun.
Still, Atomic Games may be on to something. Recently I asked Ned Parker, a long-time Baghdad correspondent, what he thought of "Six Days". “It sounds kind of crazy,” he allowed, “but the last time I embedded with troops in Iraq, as soon as they got back to base, all they did was get on their laptops and play war games.”
Picture credit: "Six Days in Fallujah", Atomic Games
(Benjamin Pauker is managing editor of World Policy Journal.)
.
He that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger
24And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
25And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
27For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luke 22:24-30.
.
Vatican Engineered Victory for Pelosicare
Written by Cliff Kincaid
Monday, 09 November 2009 16:41
In a story about why the U.S. Catholic Bishops have embraced Democratic-style universal health care, the Los Angeles Times noted that the Roman Catholic Church considers healthcare a basic human right, "a position the church has articulated since 1963, when it was included in a papal encyclical by Pope John XXIII." Indeed, healthcare is declared a right in the "Peace on Earth" encyclical. That is also the basis of Obamacare.
The group Catholic Democrats has hailed passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009, and notes that the only House Republican voting for it, Representative Joseph Cao of Louisiana, is a Catholic and former Jesuit seminarian. "The Catholic Church has been at the forefront of advocating for health care as a right for decades, including pastoral letters issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 1981 and 1993," the group notes.
The evidence indicates that the Bishops-and the Vatican itself-are calling the shots behind the scene. In fact, as many media organizations are now reporting, they engineered the "compromise" that deleted abortion funding so the bill could pass the House. The Los Angeles Times reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, not only "conferred with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to be sure the new restrictions were acceptable" but "consulted by telephone with a cardinal in Rome."
CNN reported that, as a deal was being made between Pelosi and Catholic lobbyists, "Several Democrats, including Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, said they are in touch with their Catholic Bishops back home. Altmire said he must have the approval of his bishop in Pittsburgh before he can vote yes."
Where is the media outrage over "the separation of church and state?" In this case, there is direct evidence of a foreign entity, the Vatican, actually passing judgment on legislation and, in effect, delivering votes for it.
Few in the media, on the left or right, want to raise the issue, apparently fearful of being labeled "anti-Catholic."
But the outcome of the legislation in the House demonstrates that while the Republicans don't have the votes to stop it, the Vatican has the votes to pass it. Could the same thing happen in the U.S. Senate?
It is time for the major media to investigate how the officials of a major religious denomination, with its headquarters in Rome, are affecting the outcome of major pieces of legislation in the Congress of the United States.
This is a matter of great importance because government-guaranteed "rights," in the Vatican's view, don't stop with health care. Man, the papal "Peace on Earth" document said, "has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood."
As defined by the Catholic Bishops, this is a blueprint for a socialist state.
The encyclical said that individuals have the right to private ownership of property but that this right "entails a social obligation as well."
In this context, in a major story largely ignored by the major U.S. media, a London newspaper recently noted that L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, published an October 21 article by Georg Sans that praised the Marxist theory of alienation under capitalism. The article, published in Italian, said that the church "must be grateful" to Marx for explaining the concept of "alienated labor" and "surplus value." Sans also said that "a large part of humanity" remains alienated.
The article was reprinted by an Italian communist website, complete with an image of Karl Marx flashing a "V" for victory sign.
So-called "surplus value," which is said to amount to exploitation of workers under capitalism, is one of the major concepts of Marxism. It justifies the hatred of and violence against private property owners-the capitalists. "The doctrine of surplus value is the cornerstone of Marx's economic theory," stated V.I. Lenin.
Surplus value may sound esoteric but the concept is absolutely necessary in understanding the appeal of Marxism and the basis for revolutionary activity. The notion of surplus value is supposed to reflect the amount of output that exceeds the cost of the workers to produce a commodity. By definition under Marxism, this "surplus value," the source of what is commonly called profit, constitutes exploitation of the workers. It is the basis for government control of the economy and elimination of the property owners once the workers supposedly take charge.
The Vatican newspaper article is not a complete embrace of all aspects of Marxism. Sans, who teaches the History of Contemporary Philosophy at the Università Gregoriana, the first Jesuit university, is also critical of Marx's materialism and how Marxism has been applied in practice by Communist parties. He calls this "ideological abuse" and says that an understanding of mankind has to take into account man's spiritual nature. Sans says that, "The history of Marxism has taught us, however, that all attempts to introduce communism by force ended up in an injustice and an even greater misery."
On the other hand, the article still puts the Vatican newspaper on the side of the Marxist philosophy of state control in the name of liberating the workers. "We must be grateful to the philosopher for the idea that man should be considered in light of the mode of production and form of economic management which predominate in society," he writes.
However, as Thomas Sowell points out in his book, Marxism, the Marxist analysis ignores the value produced by the capitalists who exercised private property rights in creating the means of production and employing the workers in the first place. Hence, the Marxist concept of surplus value, Sowell argues, is "Plainly arbitrary and unsupported." It is essential to Marxist theory because the abolition of private property is a major plank in the communist platform.
The Sans article doesn't just embrace the Marxist theory of alienation from the economy. On the matter of the natural environment, Sans expands this dubious theory to include another "aspect of alienation" which he said involves "man against nature." Sans condemned the "overexploitation of natural resources and environmental destruction" that are said to characterize industrial societies.
Sounding like Al Gore, he explained, "No need to be materialistic to recognize that we must establish a degree of harmony between man and his natural environment. It is not simply to relate to a living space or obtaining food, but take account of the man who shall be a unity of body and spirit." He goes on to condemn the "overexploitation of natural resources and environmental destruction" that are said to result from such alienation.
As noted by the London Times, "Professor Sans's article was first published in La Civiltà Cattolica, a Jesuit paper, which is vetted in advance by the Vatican Secretariat of State. The decision to republish it in the Vatican newspaper gives it added papal endorsement."
Kevin Clarke wrote a blog posting on the site of America magazine, the national Catholic Jesuit weekly, which declared, somewhat jokingly, "We're all Marxists now!"
Jokes aside, the Vatican newspaper article is embarrassing to many Catholics, for the obvious reason that it exposes Marxist sympathies deep within the Vatican at a time when many Americans, including Catholics, are resisting the Marxist drive for total government control in the U.S. Embarrassment explains why so many conservative Catholic commentators have decided to ignore this Vatican embrace of the key component of revolutionary Marxism.
To make matters worse, the astute "Reading the Maps" blog pointed out that "The explanation for the appearance of Sans' article may lie in an extraordinary but little-noticed Encyclical which the Pope issued in 2007 called Spe Salvi, or In Hope We Were Saved. Spe Salvi includes a long and surprisingly sophisticated assessment not only of the thought of Marx, but of the whole history of Western thought since the Enlightenment."
The headline over the blog carried the headline, "Is the Pope a Marxist?"
This papal Encyclical explained that the "dreadful living conditions" described by Friedrich Engels, the co-author of the communist manifesto, gave rise to the Marxist view that "the time had come for a new, proletarian revolution," in which "progress could not simply continue in small, linear steps" and that "A revolutionary leap was needed."
The encyclical explained that "Karl Marx took up the rallying call, and applied his incisive language and intellect to the task of launching this major new and, as he thought, definitive step in history towards salvation-towards what Kant had described as the 'Kingdom of God.'"
It went on, "With great precision, albeit with a certain one-sided bias, Marx described the situation of his time, and with great analytical skill he spelled out the paths leading to revolution-and not only theoretically: by means of the Communist Party that came into being from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, he set it in motion. His promise, owing to the acuteness of his analysis and his clear indication of the means for radical change, was and still remains an endless source of fascination. Real revolution followed, in the most radical way in Russia."
However, the Pope also said that Marx's "fundamental" error was that "he did not say how matters should proceed thereafter" and that "He simply presumed that with the expropriation of the ruling class, with the fall of political power and the socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem would be realized." The Pope noted that Marxism did not lead to a "perfect world" but left behind "a trail of appalling destruction," which is a major understatement. Professor Paul Kengor notes that the seminal Harvard University Press work, The Black Book of Communism, was probably conservative when estimating only 100 million deaths at the hands of communist governments.
On another level, the Pope argued that the "error" of Marx was his materialistic philosophy, which ignores man's freedom and assumed that "once the economy had been put right, everything would automatically be put right."
However, on economic matters, as we have seen in the health care debate, the U.S. Catholic Bishops have embraced Democratic-style universal health care, declaring on the basis of a papal encyclical that health care is a right that should be guaranteed by government.
On the global level, Pope Benedict spoke forcefully in his own "Charity in Truth" encyclical, declaring that we need "a worldwide redistribution of energy resources," more foreign aid from rich to poor nations, and a "world political authority" with "teeth" working through the United Nations to bring this about.
The "teeth" could include the global bank tax that was discussed at the recent meeting of G-20 finance ministers and central bankers.
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Source: http://www.rightsidenews.com/200911097231/editorial/vatican-engineered-victory-for-pelosicare.html
Note: Bolds and Highlights added for emphasis by Arsenio.
..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)