Angry? Arrogant? Evil? Are you afraid of this man and what he is doing to America?

We the People. That's who he should be afraid of!!

True Freedom

On the morning of June 2, 1979, Blessed John Paul II prepared to address his Polish brothers for the first time since becoming pope. Still suffering greatly under the yoke of Communism, the Polish people had been oppressed not only by the Soviets, but by the Nazis before them. Under both ideologies, oppression was widespread and extremely violent, and the distinctive and rich Christian culture of Poland was systematically attacked in an attempt to cut the people off from their roots.

Leading up to a visit that is now recognized as one of the most important events of the 20th century, John Paul considered some key questions with a depth of understanding born of tremendous personal suffering under both the Nazis and the Communists. What can be done against the seemingly overwhelming indifference and apathy toward God, family and the dignity of life? Is it possible to change the direction of a nation or people whose culture and behavior seem to be set in stone? Should we even try?

In his homily, on this first of nine visits to Poland, the Holy Father with love proclaimed to a people in darkness:

"For man cannot be fully understood without Christ. Or rather, man is incapable of understanding himself fully without Christ. He cannot understand who he is, nor what his true dignity is, nor what his vocation is, nor what his final end is. He cannot understand any of this without Christ."

He understood all too well the problem of his beloved people and he knew that the remedy for their predicament was to be found in a real encounter with Jesus Christ. His words pierced through the darkness overshadowing the people of God, and struck like an axe at the root of their enslavement. His homily resonated deep within their hearts and ignited a firestorm among a people who longed to be free. This firestorm brought change and renewal not only to Poland, but also, as history attests, to millions who were suffering from various forms of enslavement around the world. Truth brings freedom!

Oftentimes, modern day rhetoric cloaks man's nature and ultimate destiny in complete obscurity. Rooted in atheistic secular humanism, this obscurity portrays man in a false light, alienating him from his true identity, purpose and destiny. John Paul II, having lived under the opposed but similar tyrannies of Nazism and Communism, understood both how low a people can be brought, and also how the same people can rise if their God-given rights and dignity are recognized and protected. He believed that goodness and redemption are available to those who know and love their Savior; and the potential that can be realized by this love and knowledge.

The ideologies faced by John Paul II and the people of Poland may have passed, but new ones are taking their place all around the world. These ideologies come disguised as reformers, visionaries and champions of so-called social justice, but their ideas threaten to shackle humanity and lead it deeper into oppression. A culture based on anything other than God's design only alienates people from God and from each other, thus creating a Culture of Death.

The rekindling of hope in a people who were reconnected with their faith and culture, and the subsequent recognition of human rights, is a lesson we can still learn from today. Every person has a right to life. Every person has the right to authentic freedom. It is the government's job to protect our God-given rights and defend them against unjust aggressors, including the government itself.

There is certainly a culture war that is being waged today. In the crosshairs are the person and his inalienable and God-given rights. The innocent child, the elderly, the poor, the dying, the disabled and the traditional family are under attack. We have an obligation to protect them from ideologies that dehumanize; otherwise, one day the person or ethnic group caught in the crosshairs might be us.

The HHS mandate and the so-called "accommodation" are but an example of what happens when "progressive" secular humanism takes power and attempts to implement its agenda. Religious liberty is a stumbling block to its goals and it must be limited, if not completely abolished. Progressive secular humanists in this country revealed their agendas in Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decades ago. Now they wish to force a segment of the country to disregard their religious doctrines and conscience.

Their "accommodation" is no accommodation at all. Who will pay for the "free" contraception and child-killing drugs? Nothing is free. Let's not be fooled into thinking that the Obama administration has changed its mind and offered any sort of compromise. This administration has one of the most aggressively progressive agendas we have seen, and it will not compromise en route to implementing this agenda.

Imagine if they were to win this fight to force religious institutions to do what they cannot. What is next? Who is next?

Blessed John Paul II, pray for us!

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Father Shenan J. Boquet
President, Human Life International

True Freedom

Standing with the Bishops

One hundred fifty-one and counting... That is the number of Bishops who, at the time of this writing, have issued public condemnations of the Obama administration's confirmation of its radical and unjust "contraceptive mandate." Led by USCCB president and Cardinal-elect Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, our shepherds are stepping out in front of their flocks and challenging the administration in no uncertain terms.

The unprecedented move by this administration has been met in turn by an unprecedented display of outspoken and public unity in the Church. Even liberal Catholic supporters of the administration, and entities that brazenly supported the passage of the healthcare reform bill over the objections of the bishops, have begun to voice their concerns publicly. They seem to be expressing surprise that they would be used by the administration and then kicked to the curb when their cover was no longer needed.

While this unusual display of support from the left wing of the Church is welcome, the question must be asked about how we got to this point. It is left to our imagination to wonder what would have happened if, during their many meetings with the administration leading up to the passage of ObamaCare, the leadership of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) would have told the administration in no uncertain terms that they would immediately withdraw their effusive public support for the bill unless there was clear and strong language within the bill itself protecting conscience rights in absolute terms. We must also wonder what would have happened if, months before the CHA leadership received a "signing pen" from the president - a trophy given only to those few who were absolutely essential to the bill's passage - they told him that, given President Obama's past record in promoting abortion at every possible turn, they would need him to adopt the Stupak language (which even its sponsor abandoned in the final stretch, citing CHA as an authority, and which also was not as strong as many preferred) to ensure that abortion coverage would not be expanded by the bill.

I do not say this to condemn CHA's leadership or anyone else. That isn't my job, and like any Catholic who understands his faith, I trust those responsible to address issues of authority in this matter. Our faith demands forgiveness be given - 70 times 7 times - and if CHA's leadership were to at this point help lead the opposition to this assault by the administration on our Faith, I would, like many I'm sure, welcome them to the front. Up to a point, I believe engagement with the administration was at least potentially valuable, if the terms were clear and truthful, and people were acting in good faith.

But that assumes that all parties are acting in good faith, an assumption that very few now believe. If we are going to learn from this painful episode, then we need to - in Charity and in Truth - look at how we got here. Charity is not, and never has been, about "niceness;" and we should learn our lesson about dealing with this administration, and the others that will follow it, if we are not to be fooled again.

President Obama promised Planned Parenthood before the election that he saw "reproductive care" (which, according to the president and Planned Parenthood essentially includes abortion and contraception) as being "at the center and at the heart" of his health care reform plan. Why so many refused to take him at his word for this is baffling to me.

Before this, he voted four times in the Illinois State Senate, and even advocated in a speech on the Senate floor, against a bill that would have required that life-saving treatment be given to children who were born following botched abortions. Even the unequivocally pro-abortion Barbara Boxer voted for an almost identical bill at the federal level, so careful was its crafting so as not to impinge on the so-called "freedom of choice." In opposing this bill, the president placed himself squarely in the tiniest minority of the most radical of anti-life politicians.

As a U.S. senator, Mr. Obama had a 100% rating from the pro-abortion group NARAL. I could go on for hours, but you get the point - the president is no agent of compromise when it comes to abortion or contraception, and he never has been. And with his appointment of the baptised-Catholic Kathleen Sebelius to the position of Secretary of HHS, he ensured that his health care policy would be carried out to the letter by the entity that, by the design of the legislation that is now nicknamed after him, would have total control over all aspects of health care practice and coverage by the time it was fully implemented.

This is exactly what ObamaCare was designed to do.

How this enormous power grab by people - people who could not have done more to telegraph their intentions - received even the slightest amount of support from Catholic "experts" in health care is a question I can't begin to understand. Catholics are now being told we that we have no choice but to pay for things that we know will kill children and harm women, or to go out of business. The experts knew that this power was being given to the government, but somehow they bought into unwritten backroom assurances that freedom of conscience and religion would be respected?

Of course Catholics believe in basic, essential health care for everyone! That's why we have built and run hundreds of hospitals that serve people of every faith and background. It's a part of our mandate as Christians to serve the poor and heal the sick out of our love of Christ, whom we see especially in the weakest and most vulnerable. This is how we live solidarity, a key principle of Catholic Social Doctrine.

But we also believe in something called subsidiarity, which is another basic principle of our doctrine that essentially says that we shouldn't cede control of any services to larger entities when we can do them better ourselves at the local level. Catholic hospitals treat patients as persons - persons made in the image and likeness of our Creator, and who thus have inviolable dignity from the moment of conception until the moment that their Creator decides to take them home. This understanding of the human person has consequences in how we perform health care. The people who now, or within the next year if nothing is done, have almost complete control of every aspect of healthcare radically disagree with Catholics about the nature of the human person - the patients being served. And their beliefs also have consequences with how they think health care should work, and their view is summarized in the now-president's statement that abortion and contraception are at the heart of such care.

A bill now being discussed that intends to defend freedom of conscience in law is good, and deserves support. But again, this administration has not only laid bare its disdain for the Catholic faith, but also for the rule of law. Five words: The Defense of Marriage Act. This administration cares not a whit about any inconvenient legal impediment to realizing its goals - their only law is the law of power, which they currently have. A bill will not stop or even slow them down in their expressed goal to "fundamentally change" our nation.

And it is our nation. ObamaCare must be repealed in its entirety, and all of its bureaucratic tentacles that are now being constructed must be dismantled one by one. In its place we argue for a system that respects not only life and freedom of religion and conscience, but the right of local communities to take care of their own; and one that has a great humility in implementing intermediate levels of control when necessary, due to inadequacy at the local level.

Hallelujah! The Church is awake! Let's welcome back those who were misled into supporting this legislation and who want to set things right. Remember, we are forgiven our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. But let us not be fooled again into thinking that "dialogue" with this administration is currently possible on a truthful basis.

Let's support our bishops in prayer and in action as they lead the charge against this assault on the Church, and toward a health care system - and a society - that is truly more just.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Father Shenan J. Boquet
President, Human Life International

Standing with the Bishops

The Morality of the Growing Public Debt

If we promote the family and the related idea of generosity with life, we have to be concerned with the ability of young couples to form and raise their families. In order to raise children, a family needs a degree of economic stability; and even more it needs a real non-inflationary economic growth that steadily creates jobs, and also allows for the reasonable increase of salaries in real terms. As a consequence, we should promote an economy that will not be depressed by the obligation of paying off our growing public debt. It is time to discuss the moral injustice of constantly increasing the public debt limit.

The troubling situation of skyrocketing public debt has to be seen within the context of the current economic crisis. This crisis has short term causes in the mismanagement of financial institutions in the U.S. as well as in the housing bubble that was produced, in part, by government programs that decoupled the normal risk calculations from loan interest rates and policies. But it also has long term causes, which include the reduced birth rate and the constant growth of public spending, which in turn leads to a ballooning debt. The reduced birth rate decreases the effective demand of goods and services and puts a growing pressure on the social security systems, as fewer active workers have to sustain a growing number of retirees.

On both sides of the Atlantic the erroneous theories of John Maynard Keynes have been, and still are, being put into effect. He taught that in times of economic crisis consumer demand must be stimulated by government investment, and that an "attitude of saving" must be discouraged, as was recently noted by Ettore Gotti Tedeschi in L'Osservatore Romano.

A constant increase of the public debt "ceiling" leads to fiscal irresponsibility as the government becomes addicted to reckless spending, expecting that the debt limit will be constantly raised by Congress. Governments, like private persons, should limit their expenditure to their income.

If tax revenues are not sufficient to cover a nation's budget, the government has three alternatives: they can reduce spending, increase taxes, or increase the money supply, which causes inflation. In order to stimulate their troubled economies, governments on both sides of the Atlantic have resorted to printing money and borrowing to cover their reckless spending, causing a very grave injustice to be passed on to the next generation.

For several reasons, there is a moral imperative to reduce the budget, but we will examine just two key reasons here. First, an expanding budget takes up a growing percentage of the wealth of a nation, and as a consequence, it tends towards socialism and totalitarianism. Second, more government spending is not the answer to our social, economic, or cultural problems, especially if those funds are administrated by a liberal socialist elite. Most of the social and cultural problems are of a moral nature, so it is only in the measure that the members of society are educated to live in accordance with the Law of their Creator that those problems can truly be addressed. In our current historical circumstances, we cannot expect that the government will exercise a positive leadership role in the substantial education of the population. Instead we should insist that the responsibility of addressing the social ills of society be left in the hands of the members of that society. To fulfill this mission, citizens must be liberated from undue government control, and must retain the necessary economic means to accomplish this mission. Government should not appropriate the economic means necessary to address the very real social and cultural problems that citizens are dealing with every day. This is in harmony with the principle in Catholic social doctrine known as subsidiarity.

In accordance with natural law and the social teachings of the Church, we have an obligation to help the poor and disadvantaged. But the best way to help them is not to entrust liberal civil servants with vast amount of financial resources. We have seen all too often that politicians would use funds intended to help the poor used rather as a means of social engineering, to construct a socialist and liberal society. The growth of government and the rise of the "transfer society" have, for many who were supposed to be helped by social programs, undermined a strong work ethic, and have replaced an ethos of responsibility with an ethos of dependence. We have to remember how this ethos of dependence has deep roots in European societies. Virtue and civil society have suffered in the process, as has economic progress.

We should also keep in mind that the best way to help the poor is not through financial entitlements but through a modestly but consistently growing economy that will generate new jobs. Civil society should also promote the necessary training to obtain those jobs. In the Gospel, the Lord says the greatest commandment is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This means that we have to love God and our neighbor with all our intelligence, which means that we apply all our technical knowledge to serve the poor and the disadvantaged.

Increasing taxes reduces the incentives to create wealth and gives more power to government, which a risk that we have to avoid at a time when contemporary democracies are constantly sliding towards totalitarianism. The increase of taxes is a consequence of the massive growth of government in areas outside its core competency. The burden of proof regarding the benefits of expanding the government beyond its primary functions of maintaining law and order is on the proponents of such expansion, and it should suffice to say that the evidence is sorely lacking.

With regards to high inflation we have to consider that it tends toward immorality, social conflict and even to social collapse, which can in turn lead to the establishment of totalitarian regimes, as happened in Germany in early thirties. The main victims of inflation are those who live on fixed incomes, namely, the elderly and the poor. A high rate of inflation leads to immorality for many reasons. It leads to constant speculation. It destroys the incentive to save, which is a relatively safe way to generate capital and give some degree of economic security to families. Saving also has the great value of teaching us the importance of delayed gratification. As capital is eroded by inflation, interest rates have to go up to compensate, leading to absurd rates of interest that limit investment. If we limit the possibilities of investment we also limit the possibilities of real economic growth.

To counter the tendency towards personal savings, governments have resorted to very low, even zero percent, interest rates. This is done in order to augment the current demand for good and services, but it does so at the cost of sacrificing the future, because it severely limits a normal person's ability to generate capital. Zero percent interest rates are factually equal to a transfer of wealth from the one who is a virtuous saver to the one who has become indebted. This really is an injustice because it is a hidden tax on poor savers, and a forced transfer of funds to over-indebted states, business people and bankers. It is evident that the reduction of interest rates mainly affects the poor savers because the well-to-do normally have more flexibility to protect the returns of their capital.

Is not uncommon to hear political, civic, and religious leaders speak of "intergenerational solidarity". But to increase public debt is to negate this solidarity. Instead of bequeathing a patrimony, which is what most sane societies have tried to do in the past, we are leaving our debts to future generations. We are asking them to pay the principal and the interest on our debt with their labors. This is akin to forcing them into a form of indentured servitude to us, and it will last long after we have gone to meet our Maker. By law, one can reject an inheritance if has more liabilities than assets, but a citizen cannot reject public debt if he wants to remain a citizen: And he probably will want to remain an U.S. citizen because the alternatives outside of this country do not look very encouraging. Americans would do well to remember the wisdom of George Washington, who, in his farewell address in 1796, denounced "ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear."

Anyone who is concerned with future generations has not only the right, but the obligation, to insist that it is immoral to keep piling debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. And piety is no substitute for policy: Any increase in spending in one area must be paid with serious reductions in others, starting with the defunding of and/or the dismantling of the health care bill, known as the Affordable Care Act. Further, entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have to be brought under control. It is evident that a decreased birth rate leads to an increase in the age or retirement--it is just a question of simple accounting. It is also clear that the nation's debt is a national security risk, because nations that do not have America's best interests at heart can use their ownership of our debt to exert pressure and influence our policy.

The current generation must now accept as obvious that it has arrived at the point at which it can no longer pay its debts. To put it in simple terms, we can't "kick the can down the road" anymore, because we've come to the end of the road. Defaulting on our debt will destroy the contemporary illusions of society regarding the competency of contemporary governments to effectively govern. It will convince many members of society that the federal government has to reduce itself to the primary functions of the state which are the maintenance of law and order, and leave many other meritorious but secondary functions in the hands of the states or local communities, applying the traditional principle of subsidiarity.

Irresponsible economic policies generate a double jeopardy for future generations. First, their inheritances are lessened by policies that affect the generation of capital, like zero interest rates. Second, and worse, because of our profligacy we are piling on them a massive debt that they will never be able to pay, and which they should not have to pay. Both policies are deeply immoral and are gravely offensive to the responsibility that we have to those who follow in our footsteps.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carámbula
Interim President, Human Life International

The Morality of the Growing Public Debt

2011

Can America return to a Constitutional government? Can we re-establish limited government and properly re-balance the powers and responsibilities of the federal government and the states? Can we restore free market capitalism? Can we avoid municipal, statewide and national insolvency long enough to achieve fiscal sanity?

These are just a few of the questions that face our 'nation in crisis' in 2011.

Talking heads say we need to set aside 'social' issues and focus like a laser on these 'higher priorities'.

However, in attempting to treat these symptoms, are we failing to cure the underlying diseases?

What cancers lie beneath the surface? What malignancies exist that waste away at the fabric of our society, rot our Founding Principals, attack our liberties and freedoms, and burden our relationship with the God who gave us the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Can we truly pursue limited government, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise, and American Constitutionalism by turning our backs on the Author of Life and Liberty or living as though our immoral conduct does not affect our moral compass with regard to to these 'higher priorities'?

'Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Adams October 11, 1798.)

'Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.' (Benjamin Franklin.)

In 2011, we will be challenged with new leadership responsibilities. Will we tend to the symptoms and affect a cure or will we only gauze over visible sores and ignore the internal hemorrhaging?

Almost every ill we suffer as a people can be linked to a vicious cycle of relying upon a government solution to an individual, familiar, or local problem. Growing federal involvement into every aspect of our lives, families, communities and commerce have snowballed the size of government and exacerbated the very problems they were 'intended' to relieve.

The war cry of Saint Michael the Archangel is: WHO IS LIKE GOD? In fact his very name, Michael, is his war cry!

In looking at the size, scope and intrusiveness of the federal government, it is not hard to make the argument that we as a country have replaced God with government. Instead of relying upon the common sensibilities of our Founding Fathers, we have delegated our individual responsibilities to the federal government and have attempted to strip from God his role as Deity.

Saint Michael must be bellowing his war cry as we turn from the Divine.

'Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?' (Thomas Jefferson - 1782.)

'Where it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor....' (George Washington.)

Without addressing the immoral underpinnings which fertilize the growth of government, any attempt to shrink the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy will only lead to chaos and collapse.

More than ever, we as a people need to turn to God and from both government and our evil ways. This includes both our fiscal and social sins.

In reality, God has already provided us with the only road map needed:

2 Chronicles 7:14

If my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my presence and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and revive their land.

May God Bless America!

Freedom's Fool -- December 31, 2010

In Defense of 'Hurtful' Speech

Wilders: In Defense of 'Hurtful' Speech Wall Street Journal 24 June 2011

In Defense of 'Hurtful' Speech

I was tried for a thought crime despite being an elected politician and the leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament. Yesterday was a beautiful day for freedom of speech in the Netherlands. An Amsterdam court acquitted me of all charges of hate speech after a legal ordeal that lasted almost two years.

The Dutch people learned that political debate has not been stifled in their country. They learned they are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and that resistance against Islamization is not a crime. I was brought to trial despite being an elected politician and the leader of the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament. I was not prosecuted for anything I did, but for what I said.

My view on Islam is that it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian political ideology with religious elements. While there are many moderate Muslims, Islam's political ideology is radical and has global ambitions. I expressed these views in newspaper interviews, op-ed articles, and in my 2008 documentary, "Fitna."

I was dragged to court by leftist and Islamic organizations that were bent not only on silencing me but on stifling public debate. My accusers claimed that I deliberately "insulted" and "incited discrimination and hatred" against Muslims. The Dutch penal code states in its articles 137c and 137d that anyone who either "publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people" or "in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished."

I was dragged to court for statements that I made as a politician and which were meant to stimulate public debate in a country where public debate has stagnated for decades. Dutch political parties see themselves as guardians of a sterile status quo. I want our problems to be discussed. I believe that politicians have a public trust to further debates about important issues. I firmly believe that every public debate holds the prospect of enlightenment.

My views represent those of a growing number of Dutch voters, who have flocked to the Party for Freedom, or PVV. The PVV is the fastest-growing party in the country, expanding from one seat in the 150-seat House of Representatives in 2004, to nine seats in 2006 and 24 seats in 2010. My party's views, however, are so uncommon in the Netherlands that they are considered blasphemous by powerful elites who fear and resent discussion.

That's why I was taken to court, even though the public prosecutor saw no reason to prosecute me. "Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society," the prosecutors repeatedly said during my trial. "That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable."

The Netherlands is one of the few countries in the world where a court can force the public prosecutor to prosecute someone. In January 2009, three judges of the Amsterdam Appeals Court ordered my prosecution in a politically motivated verdict that focused on the content of the case. They implied that I was guilty. The case was subsequently referred to the Amsterdam Court of First Instance.

The judges who acquitted me yesterday already had a peremptory ruling from the appeals court on their desk. They decided, however, to follow the arguments of the public prosecutor, who during the trial had once again reiterated his position and had asked for a full acquittal.

Though I am obviously relieved by yesterday's decision, my thoughts go to people such as Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, Austrian human rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others who have recently been convicted for criticizing Islam. They have not been as fortunate. In far too many Western countries, it is still impossible to have a debate about the nature of Islam.

The biggest threat to our democracies is not political debate, nor is it public dissent. As the American judge Learned Hand once said in a speech: "That community is already in the process of dissolution . . . where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists to win or lose." It has been a tenet in European and American thinking that men are only free when they respect each other's freedom. If the courts can no longer guarantee this, then surely a community is in the process of dissolution.

Legislation such as articles 137c and 137d of the Dutch Penal Code disgraces our democratic free societies. On the basis of such legislation, I was prevented from representing my million-and-a-half voters in parliament because I had to be in the courtroom for several days, sometimes up to three days per week, during the past year and a half. Such legislation should be abolished. It should be abolished in all Western countries where it exists-and replaced by First Amendment clauses.

Citizens should never allow themselves to be silenced. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.

Mr. Wilders is a member of the Dutch Parliament and the leader of the Party for Freedom.