'Exodus Now': Black Bishop Launches Brutal Attack Against Democratic Party

Breitbart



by John Nolte, 27 Sep 2012

You can't imagine how many videos I get sent to me. I make a point of watching some of all of them, but I couldn't stop watching this one:

 

 

Note that Bishop Jackson is not endorsing Mitt Romney or the Republican Party and never once mentions Barack Obama. His testimony is merely an indictment of the Democrat Party, not from a racial or partisan perspective, but from a Christian one.

Honestly, I would love to hear anyone attempt to argue against the points the Bishop makes about Planned Parenthood, same sex marriage, and most especially the Democratic Party's attacks against God, up to and including the booing of God last month at the Democratic convention in Charlotte (something the Bishop mentions in the video).

Bishop Jackson has turned his beliefs into a moment called S.T.A.N.D. -- which stands for Staying True to America's Destiny. Here's the website.

From the looks of it, he's just getting started.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

Benghazi-Gate: New Evidence White House Lied About Libya Terror Attack

by John Nolte, 28 Sep 2012, 6:44 AM PDT, Breitbart 

Yesterday, we learned that within 24 hours of something they would spend nine days describing as a "spontaneous" protest gone bad, the Obama Administration itself designated the attack on our Libyan consulate as a terrorist attack. And yet, days later, Obama would trot U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice out to all the Sunday shows to look the media and America in the eye with a wildly false story the White House had known for days just wasn't true:

Intelligence sources said that the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect. The sources said the intelligence community knew by Sept. 12 that the militant Ansar al-Shariah and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were likely behind the strike.

Further, an official said, "No one ... believed that the mortars, indirect and direct fire, and the RPGs were just the work of a mob -- no one."

And it wasn't just Ambassador Rice telling us something our government knew wasn't true. As this timeline proves, it was also White House spokesman Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the President himself.

Today, thanks to some great reporting from the Daily Beast's Eli Lake, we're now learning that within hours of the Libyan attack, on monitored communications, U.S. intelligence overheard al-Qaeda militants celebrating their successful attack:

In the hours following the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, U.S. intelligence agencies monitored communications from jihadists affiliated with the group that led the attack and members of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group’s North African affiliate.

In the communications, members of Ansar al-Sharia (AAS) bragged about their successful attack against the American consulate and the U.S. ambassador, according to three U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast anonymously because they were not authorized to talk to the press.

As Charles Krauthammer pointed out last night during Brett Baier's Fox News' roundtable, the explanation for the White House cover up is quite simple: At their convention, Team Obama had just completed three days of spiking the bin Laden football and reassuring America that al-Qaeda had been decimated by smart power. Then it all blew up in their face. The Middle East exploded and al-Qaeda successfully executed a pre-planned assassination of our Libyan ambassador.

What to do?

What to do?

Well, when you have the media completely on your side, you use them as co-conspirators. So as the media distracted from the attack by relentlessly hammering Romney over his criticism of the Cairo Embassy apology, the Obama administration fabricated a fairy tale that would avoid game-changing headlines that might read: Al-Qaeda Assassinates Libyan Ambassador; Security Questions Raised.

It's obvious now that the Administration and media are hoping to run out the clock. That leaves it up to New Media and a few legitimate reporters in the MSM to drip-drip-drip out the truth surrounding a first class scandal --a scandal in three parts: 1) The lack of security at the consulate. 2) The lies about this being the result of a spontaneous demonstration. 3) the cover up of numbers one and two.

But if what I'm seeing today is any indication, the media remains as guilty as the Obama Administration in what's now known as 'Benghazi-Gate'. Because the more proof of the White House cover up that's discovered, the more the media disengages from the story.

Solely because it might damage Obama's reelection chances, the biggest story in the country right now is not being told.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

Today of "Kresta in the Afternoon" - September 28, 2012

Talking about the "things that matter most" on Sept. 28

4:00 – The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction about Catholicism
The Roman Catholic Church has long been the target of suspicion and hostility. But how much of this is based on ignorance and prejudice and how much is the fruit of thoughtful consideration of the facts? Dr. Christopher Kaczor is here to separate fact from fiction. Without excusing or justifying wrongdoing, Kaczor clarifies official Catholic teaching and demonstrates that much popular opinion about Catholicism is based on misunderstanding and misinformation. He also provides robust and lucid arguments for Catholic belief and practice.

5:00 – The Word of the Lord: 7 Essential Principles for Catholic Scripture Study
For many Catholics, Scripture remains an elusive part of their Faith, or worse yet, a weapon used against them when encountering challenges from other denominations. If you think you have to be a Bible scholar to understand the Scriptures, think again! Dr. Steve Smith is here to look at crucial common questions, explanations, answers, and interpretations that will launch you into the exciting adventure that awaits you in Scripture.

Dozens injured, thousands confused by riots over "Gospel of Jesus' Wife"

CWR Blog

September 26, 2012 08:20 EST

By Nick Bottom

DEVIL'S ELBOW, Missouri (ASS)— Theocratic, mean-spirited violence has erupted throughout the deep South, the "Bible Belt", the Midwest, and a smattering of towns in the Rocky Mountains as thousands of Christians have taken to the streets, wielding swords, Bibles, and plowshares, to protest the recent revelation that Jesus had at least one wife. Other protests, less violent but also widespread, took place over reports that some scholars and pulp novelists believe Jesus merely dated, but never married.

Generic picture of Christians gathering and praying.

In Devil's Elbow, Missouri, a group of about two hundred men, women, and children, all blood relatives of one sort or another, dressed in their Sunday best and carrying large Bibles, stormed through the downtown, chanting, "Those who mock the Lord, will surely taste the sword; Liars say he had a wife, liars deserve to taste the knife." At least eighteen were injured from blows and bursts of righteous indignation, and two men were slain in the Spirit, although they were apparently not harmed physically.

Eyewitnesses report that the riotous Christians were singing a popular, militantly theistic song with the lyrics, "It only takes a spark, to get a fire going/and soon all those around, are warmed up by its glowing..." One bystander, Joe "Buck" Bob, said the singing was "unusually good; they have really purty voices."
Similar riots have broken out in numerous small towns. But they are also taking place in cities and other important places. Demonstrations near Harvard University, where professor Karen L. King teaches, were especially intense, in part because Christians had not been on the Harvard campus for nearly five decades, and faculty and staff were deeply confused by their clean-cut appearance and efficient methods of quoting Scripture while seeking to force victims to "do some serious soul searching". Numerous faculty members and students were shocked and traumatized by what one history professor called "the sort of theocratic-inspired violence that hasn't been witnessed since Galileo was torn to shreds by Roman Catholic popes and their mistresses in the Vatican gardens in the thirteenth century."
King, the Harvard Divinity School professor who had brought the stunning text, "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife" to public attention last week, denounced the actions as those of "crazy, right-wing, woman-hating, religious zealots who want to impose their fundamentalist, sharia law upon people of good will and Ivy League professors." Speaking from a tightly guarded ivory tower, she told some six dozen reporters that the potentially bloody demonstrations were not surprising considering the violence that had followed the publication of The Da Vinci Code, which had first brought the issue of Jesus' marital status to the attention of people who were not aware of who Jesus was or why an ordinary Jewish lad would eschew marriage in the first place.
"My research indicates that this 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife' is not a gospel," the Harvard professor noted, "and has nothing to do with the real Jesus or a wife. Yet it raises questions that lead to speculation, which in turn engenders discussion and further consideration, which might lead to further questions and points of delicate cogitation. Which is why it's so important that we have a reasonable dialogue about this text's deeper subtext." Such calls for careful, rational discussion have not, however, been reciprocated. The leader of the Harvard demonstrations, who simply identified himself as a "Bible-believing, God-fearing disciple of Jesus", stated that he is "sick and tired of pagans trying to understand a book they don't even read", an apparent reference to either the Bible or Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. (King, responding to an e-mail inquiry, stated, "I've seen the movies for both books, and enjoyed them very much, especially the one by Monty Python.")
Some experts, such as Dr. John L. Seagal of Boston, have pointed out that violence, lack of anger management, and verbal abuse by Christians has been a common occurrence among traditional Christians ever since the Beatles first visited the U.S., escalating dramatically with now legendary productions and performances of "Jesus Christ Superstar", "Godspell", and the movie, "The Life of Brian". "I thought 'Godspell' brought all of us closer to the true Jesus, whoever he might be," noted Seagal. "And I still listen to 'Day by Day' nearly every day." Close to five hundred people have suffered physical, emotional, or spiritual harm during or following performances of "Jesus Christ Superstar", some from self-described "Bible bombers" who shout "John 3:16!" before tossing heavy copies of the Bible into the audiences.
Brown, a best-selling author and popular historian, has spent nearly all of his earnings on bodyguards, security equipment, and counseling for the deep guilt he experienced due to making millions of dollars writing stories filled with what he calls "mystery, love, joy, yearning, and a desire to touch the toes of the transcendent." In a 2009 interview, granted via the internet from an unknown location, he claimed that "pre-Vatican II Catholics and charity-challenged Christians" have sought to capture, torture, and kill him rather than respond peacefully to "the provocative but sincere questions that I put forward in a novel that I still think is slightly better than Ron Howard's game but ultimately stilted cinematic version." He noted that no Christian has yet written a critique or publicly addressed his claims. "They would rather riot, break stuff, and shout nonsense about the 'great Satan'. What would Jesus think of that?" The interview was cut short when Brown began weeping and shouting, "I want to talk to Tom Hanks! Get me his number!" (Brown's agent confirmed that the author has been feeling the pressure of finishing his new novel, about a Scientologist who makes movies while solving the "riddle of love" by dating and marrying Catholic women. The novel is rumored to be titled Cruise Clues.)
What would Jesus think? We spoke to several sociologists, all of whom argued that "thinking" is not the problem. "Christians are simply humorless", stated another author, a famous New Age author whose books on Buddha, Muhammad, Jesus, and Jack Daniels have sold well among his family members. "And they always use such stilted language when insulting me: 'Thou art a sinful goat! Get thee to Hades, ye wretched pagan! Begone, little demon!'" But this anger, he explained, is not surprising. "Christianity, unlike Islam, for example, has never come to grips with modernity, technology, and hot showers. They are still living in an oppressive world of monasteries, cathedrals, and praise-and-worship services, while masochistically donating millions and millions of dollars for charity work." He further said that Mormons aren't much better, as "both Christians and Mormons have bishops, big temples, and believe in reading the Bible literally." As evidence, he referred to the epic riots in New York City, Los Angeles, and Provo, Utah, following performances of the musical, "The Book of Mormon." It has gotten to the point, he shouted, "where Christians and Mormons cannot take the least bit of teasing or gentle ribbing, and that really [expletive] my [expletive] and [expletive] to [expletive] the [expletive], [etc.]" They are, he added, "very angry, and that bothers me."
Government officials have tried to control the riots and calm the spreading chaos through a series of colorful television commercials (featuring hand puppets and felt banners) urging Christians to "be nice" and to "remember that hate is not a family value". One such commercial features former President Jimmy Carter saying, "I used to read the Bible literally. Now I listen to NPR." But the reality of God-inspired anger and violence is not easily crushed and destroyed, explained a mid-level State Department official, speaking anonymously by appearing on a CNN program. "Some of them don't watch television, while others only watch certain channels. They are clever buggers. Much of this could have been avoided if we'd never let Billy Graham hold crusades or allow popes to visit this great nation." Asked what makes the U.S. such a "great nation", he immediately responded, "Well, tolerance, of course. And open-mindedness. And football. Real football, not that sissy stuff they have in other parts of the world."
But some experts believe that Christians committing acts of "righteous" violence and aggressive evangelization are not responsible for those actions. "These are people who cling blindly to religion and guns and early Amy Grant albums", said Dr. Barry Guhd of the University of Upper Manhattan. "They are acting out of fear, irrational prejudice, and concerns the 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife' might reflect the actual views of someone living in the fourth century. Many of them believe that if they die while defending their faith, they'll no longer have to pay taxes or watch 'State of the Union' addresses—that's how extreme they are." He identified 1985 as a key year, as that was when "Grant's 'Unguarded' album shook the fragile faith of many Christians." Grant could not be reached for comment as she is busy finishing her ninth album of holiday music with her husband, Vince Gill.
As violence spreads from Walla Walla to Topeka, and from Toledo to Corpus Christi, the questions continue to increase in both quantity and intensity: How can we appease these angry, unstable, and nicely groomed Christians? What freedoms and rights are we willing to jettison in order to stop their crusade to denounce a mysterious text bursting with questions and novel possibilities? Will Dan Brown recover the magic? Will King capture the meta-narrative? We can only ask: WWJWDIJRHAW (What Would Jesus' Wife Do If Jesus Really Had a Wife?).

 

About the Author

Nick Bottom

Nick Bottom is a weaver of clothing and words, a lovable fool, and a young thespian who is best-known for his performance in "Pyramus and Thisbe". His guiding motto is, "I will roar, that I will do any man's heart good to hear me'." He blogs to roar, to delight, and to instruct, as is his wont. He reports on behalf of his news and views agency, Audacious Scoffing Services (ASS). You can follow him on Twitter.

 

 

 

 

Romney: No Federal Support for Common Core Education Initiative

By Alyson Klein on September 25, 2012 4:04 PM Education Week

Mitt Romney told NBC's Brian Williams today that he doesn't think the federal government should provide support—financial or otherwise—for common standards, which have been adopted by forty-six states and the District of Columbia.
Instead, the Republican presidential nominee thinks states alone should pony up the money for their implementation. The Obama administration has allocated $360 million to two consortia of states to help develop tests that align with the standards, which were created through a partnership of the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association. And the administration gave states that adopted the standards an edge in the Race to the Top competition.


Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at the NBC Education
Nation Summit in New York on Sept. 25.
--Evan Vucci/AP)

"I don't happen to believe that every time there's an initiative that comes along, the federal government should finance it," Romney said during NBC's Education Nation, noting that the state he governed, Massachusetts, was able to boost its standards without having any extra federal funding.
"You know, I think it's fine for people to lay out what they think core subjects might be and to suggest a pedagogy and being able to provide that learning to our kids," Romney said. "I don't subscribe to the idea of the federal government trying to push a common core on various states. It's one thing to put it out as a model and let people adopt it as they will, but to financially reward states based upon accepting the federal government's idea of a curriculum, I think, is a mistake. And the reason I say that is that there may be a time when the government has an agenda that it wants to promote."
And in the same interview he chided Secretary of Education Arne Duncan for pushing a "national curriculum," although he added that he likes that the Obama administration has championed new teacher-evaluation systems and prodded states to expand charter schools through Race to the Top.
As he has in the past, Romney decried the influence of teachers' unions on elections and appeared to argue that unions should not be able to contribute to campaigns.

I believe that we simply—we simply can't have a setting where the teachers' unions are able to contribute tens of millions of dollars to the campaigns of politicians and then those politicians, when elected, stand across from them at the bargaining table, supposedly to represent the interest of the kids. I think it's a mistake. I think we've got to get the money out of the teachers' unions going into campaigns. It's the wrong way for us to go. We have got to separate that.

Shifting to early childhood, Romney has not outlined a specific policy on early education, and did not do so in the interview, despite a question from Williams. Instead, he argued that parents are key to making sure students succeed in the early years. In fact, he said that it can be "extraordinarily important" for one parent to stay home with his or her child.
"To have one parent that stays closely involved with the education of the child and can be at home in those early years of education can be extraordinarily important," Romney said.
But Romney, who has said he would like to tamp down on federal spending, didn't spell out any specific federal preschool initiatives that he would like to steer funding to. Instead, he said he'd take a hard look at the effectiveness of early childhood programs the federal government is already pushing, including Head Start.
Romney talked up his education record in the Bay State, including a call he made as governor to require parents in low-performing schools to take parenting classes, an idea that met with resistance and never came to fruition.
"The idea that somehow schools are entirely separate from the home, from the economic circumstances of the home, from the social experiences of the home, that's just not reality. The home is an integral part of the education system and the best teachers in the world can't possibly overcome a home that is completely pulling in a very different direction," Romney said. "That's one of the reasons why I proposed in my state that before you could send your child to go to kindergarten, that the parents had to go to a training program to learn about the impact of education. And again, I wasn't able to get it done. It's something I wanted to do and something, I think that has some merit."
Also on the early childhood front, Romney gave a big shout-out to Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone program, saying it has been "remarkably successful in helping bring young people to a posture where they're ready to learn by the time school starts," Romney said. "And those types of efforts I think should be evaluated one by one, and we should encourage and support those that are most effective."
The Harlem Children's Zone love may be one point of agreement between Romney and the Obama administration. President Obama has created a federal program, Promise Neighborhoods, which is aimed at helping communities create their own versions of the program by pairing K-12 with wrap-around services, such as early childhood education.
President Obama did his own interview on education today with NBC's Savannah Guthrie. She asked him about the fact that some states who have gotten waivers from pieces of the No Child Left Behind Act set lower student achievement goals for racial minorities than for white students. Does that bother the president, Guthrie wanted to know.
"Of course it bothers, me," Obama said. Obama noted that the waivers make a move towards growth models, which measure individual student progress and "would give every school the opportunity to improve" without being labeled as failing. And he said that schools will continue to have to break out data by subgroup. (Of course, some folks would argue that just having the data isn't going to force schools to actually intervene on behalf of minority kids.)
Obama also acknowledged that not everyone in Congress is a huge fan of Race to the Top.
"We're working with Congress to try to fund this Race to the Top model," he said. "Sometimes there's resistance to taking money out out of the formula side and putting it in these competitive grant programs. But we're going to keep pushing."
 

30 abortion workers have left, and now abortionist wants out: Abby Johnson

by John Jalsevac

September 26, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) –
Abby Johnson has been very, very busy.
Not only has the former Planned Parenthood clinic manager been flying all across the country giving pro-life talks and encouraging grassroots pro-life activism, but her new charity, “And Then There Were None,” has already helped 30 abortion workers leave the industry since it was launched earlier this year.
And Abby now says an abortionist may be next.

Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood clinic manager and now pro-life activist

“We have recently made contact with an abortion doctor,” Abby said in an update to supporters today. “Even though we cannot give you a lot of details about this situation, please know that God is working in ways that we could have never imagined.”
“Leaving the abortion industry is never easy for anyone, but the spiritual warfare than an actual abortion doctor endures during a time of conversion is tremendous,” she said.
Abby asked supporters for their prayers, “both for this courageous physician who is seeking help through our organization, and also for us as we help this doctor navigate through this transition.”
Formally launched in June, And Then There Were None was created to assist former abortion clinic workers as they transition out of the abortion industry and into a new line of work.
Abby said that the 30 abortion workers her organization has helped “have held many different positions within the industry: abortion counselor, lab technician, health educator, receptionist, billing expert, health center director, and many others.”
All of them “are now out of the abortion industry and on their way to emotional and spiritual healing.”
“When God put the vision of this ministry in my heart, I honestly never imagined that abortion doctors would be turning to us for help, as well,” she said. “I forget how big God is sometimes! I am so thankful that we serve a God of miracles!”

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book

 

Alex Pappas is a political reporter at The Daily Caller. His work has also appeared in the Press-Register in Mobile, Ala. and The Washington Examiner in D.C. He's a graduate of The University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn.

 



In this June 27, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama
 and his wife, Michelle, arrive at the Congressional
picnic on the South Lawn of the White House
in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

 

By Alex Pappas, The Daily Caller

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”
“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.
“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC.
Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.
When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers. But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.
“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.
“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?”
In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues the system should be reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.
“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”

Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional million for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.

Here is a sample of other pricey taxpayer funded perks exclusively reserved for the president:
The president can to appoint high-paid staffers without Senate confirmation: Obama has 469 senior staffers and 226 are paid more than $100,000 a year, according to the book. Seventy-seven are paid as much as $172,000 per year. He also has appointed 43 “czars.”
The president can vacation for free at Camp David: Gray writes that each round trip made to Camp David costs the taxpayers $25,350. It’s also estimated that the combined transportation and personnel costs for a Camp David visit are $295,000 per night.
The president has a full-time movie projectionist in the White House theater: Projectionists sleep at the White House and are there 24 hours a day in case anyone needs to see a movie. “Compared to the 450 times President Carter used the movie theater in his four years in the White House, the average American citizen, according to industry statistics, goes out to see a movie slightly less than five times a year,” Gray writes.
The president’s family’s gets certain travel and security expenses paid while vacationing: “First Lady Michelle Obama drew flack from the media and irate citizens when it was disclosed that, not counting Saturdays and Sundays, she spent 42 days on vacation — within the span of one year.”
The president’s dog gets its own high-paid staffer: “Bo made the news when he and his handler were flown to join the president on vacation in Maine,” Gray wrote about the Obama family dog. “It has been reported that the first family’s dog handler was paid $102,000, last year.”

The Church and Capitalism: What Subsidiarity Tells Us

by BENJAMIN WIKER Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:51 PM, National Catholic Register

Dr. Ben Wiker

As I noted in a previous post, there are some who take the Church’s rejection of socialism, collectivism, and communism, as if it were a blanket affirmation of pure capitalism. That is as misleading as thinking that the Church’s preferential option for the poor entails full political support of the welfare state.


Neither are correct, and both violate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which again states that “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good” (Catechism, 1883).
The first problem with capitalism, one that is too little noticed, is that it’s something so loosely-defined that either crying it up or decrying it is impossible (at least for the clear-thinking, deep-thinking Church). In order to judge capitalism, we’ve got to be much clearer about it. We’ll find that the principle of subsidiarity will help us gain the needed clarity.
Does capitalism mean the enshrining of the vice of avarice as if it were a virtue? The Church categorically rejects the use of an evil means to achieve an alleged good (economic development), and avarice is one of the seven deadly or “capital” sins (Catechism, 1866).
The Church cannot affirm an understanding of capitalism as fueled primarily by a capital sin (and that goes for the other six capital sins, pride, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony and sloth). As noted in Part 2 of this series, “Subsidiarity Defined,” the principle of subsidiarity protects the “moral space” of individuals and their families from governmental intervention, and the worst kind of ruin such a government could inflict would be to support an economic view that would be the ruin of morality itself.
But the Church does affirm private property as a good associated with capitalism. . It not only rejects communism and collectivism, but asserts, “The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge” (Catechism, 2402).
Private property helps fathers and mothers to fulfill their moral obligation of providing for their families.
Does capitalism mean championing the belief that the sole aim of government is the protection of private property, and that each person has an absolute right to do whatever he wants with his own property? The Church says No to both.
To the first, the Church declares that the “human person,” not the protection of private property and the promotion of its increase, “is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions” (Catechism, 1881; see also 2426). To put it another way, state power is limited by human nature.
We are not homo economicus but homo sapiens, the creature defined by the love of wisdom, and hence ultimately the love of God the source of all wisdom. Society must be defined by what is truly definitive in human nature, our God-like capacity to know and love the truth.
Economic activity is important, but subordinate to what truly defines us. The principle of subsidiarity protects persons from being turned into consumers. Therefore, “Any system in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts” (Catechism, 2423).
To the second error, the notion that we have an absolute right to property, the Church maintains that “the ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family” (Catechism, 2404).
That does not mean that it is the government’s job to take his property and make it benefit others. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the moral burden of using property for the benefit of others — and consequently, the moral punishment for failing to do so — both fall primarily on that individual’s shoulders.
That brings real seriousness to the question of what we do with our property. Jesus does not threaten those who fail to feed the hungry and clothe the naked with higher taxes, but with hell. So, while a modest use of the powers of taxation are proper to government, the redistribution of wealth is not. Furthermore, government intervention for those in need should supplement, not supplant, what can be done by families, local governments, private organizations, and the Church.
Does capitalism mean minimizing governmental interference in economic activity? “The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention” (Catechism, 1885).
Again, providing for our families and showing charity toward our communities is our moral duty, and as the principle of subsidiarity states, the higher order should not deprive the lower order of its proper functions, including its proper economic functions. As many have found out, you can’t function very well if you’re bound, hand and foot, by an endless skein of government regulations, and on top of that, hobbled by excessive taxes.
But that doesn’t mean an affirmation of the “free market,” if by “free” one means either entirely freed of any and all oversight, or “free” of any moral concerns. This is a truth available even on the natural level.
As the great 20th-century economist Friedrich Hayek made clear, state oversight is often necessary to keep the marketplace free of corruption, price-fixing, crony capitalism and monopoly so that there actually is real competition in the marketplace, real freedom of individuals to engage in economic activity. But state oversight is different from heavy-handed, centralized economic planning.
The Church agrees, and declares that “Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds,” but also that “regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice.” Therefore the Church affirms “Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives.” (Catechism, 2425).
So, does the Church affirm capitalism? No, the Church affirms the principle of subsidiarity, and uses it to judge among the various meanings of capitalism put forth in the “marketplace of ideas.”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/benjamin-wiker/the-church-and-capitalism-what-subsidiarity-tells-us#ixzz27jV4Htpx

Are the German Bishops Just Greedy?

by Jimmy Akin Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:56 PM, National Catholic Register

 

Did the German bishops make the right decision?

That's certainly the impression you would get from some discussing a recent decree issued by the German bishops' conference.
It's being characterized as a "pay to pray" policy, whereby the Church will deny you the sacraments if you don't give it money.
One news source headlined the story "German Bishops To Catholics: Pay Up Or Die Without Absolution."
That seems to be about as misleading a headline as you could want, because the decree in question expressly refers to the possibility of people receiving the final sacraments.
But let's look at the matter . . .

The Basic Facts

A member of the Secret Information Club writes:

Dear Jimmy,

What would your view be of the situation for Catholics in Germany for whom payment of the church tax (levied by the German IRS at approx 8% of your income tax bill, which in Germany can be 45% of your gross income) is now a necessary condition for access to the sacraments?

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19699581 for a reasonably accurate BBC report.

From what is being reported in the English-language press, it appears that the German bishops have issued a decree, which the Holy See has approved, that says German Catholics who tell the state that they are not Catholics are not to be given the sacraments (which is not the same thing as excommunication, by the way).
If a German Catholic tells the state that he is not a Catholic then his pastor should contact him and explain the consequences of this act and invite him to reconsider.
So far, so what? Sounds pastorally prudent.
The story certainly wouldn't receive the attention it has been getting except for a particular fact about the German civil law, and it goes to the reason that a German Catholic might want to tell the state that he is not a Catholic in the first place: To avoid paying taxes.
Apparently, in the 19th century, Germany decided that it wanted to nationalize (i.e., take over, claim for its own) a bunch of church property. To compensate the Church for this, the German state agreed to collect a "church tax" on behalf of the members of a given religious community.
Thus today German Protestants, Catholics, and Jews pay a tax that goes to support the religious institution with which they affiliate.
Given the high tax rates in Germany, people are looking for a way to lower their taxes, and telling the government that they are no longer Catholic would do that. So some have been.
What are we to make of this?

Canon Law Perspective

Fr. John Boyle takes a swing at the issue from a canonical perspective, and Dr. Edward Peters is apparently planning to do so as well.
I have not studied the issue closely from a canonical perspective--one reason being that I don't presently have access to the relevant documents.
So I look forward to seeing the documents and to analysis by Dr. Peters and others.
I'll leave the canonical perspective aside, then, and look at it instead from a practical and a theological perspective.

Practical Perspective

In politics they often refer to the "optics" of a thing--meaning how it looks, how it will be perceived.
By any standard, the optics of this thing are terrible.
It plays right into the "greedy Catholic Church" stereotype--the "pay, pray, and obey" narrative that has been used to frame the Catholic Church's attitude toward the laity in the popular press.
In other words, it looks like the German bishops are using the threat of eternal damnation to extract money from hapless laypeople, which is nigh on to simony.
The German bishops, therefore, need to offer a counter-narrative to the one that the media will inevitably use.
And they have . . .

The Counter-Narrative

As a Catholic News Service story suggests, the German bishops have tried to frame the issue without reference to money and instead frame it in terms of Catholic identity:

"There must be consequences for people who distance themselves from the church by a public act," said Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg, conference president, in defending the Sept. 20 decree.

"Clearly, someone withdrawing from the church can no longer take advantage of the system like someone who remains a member," he said at a Sept. 24 news conference as the bishops began a four-day meeting in Fulda. "We are grateful Rome has given completely clear approval to our stance."

The archbishop said each departure was "painful for the church," adding that bishops feared many Catholics were unaware of the consequences and would be "open to other solutions."

"The Catholic church is committed to seeking out every lost person," said Archbishop Zollitsch, whose remarks were reported by Germany's Die Welt daily.

"At issue, however, is the credibility of the church's sacramental nature. One cannot be half a member or only partly a member. Either one belongs and commits, or one renounces this," Archbishop Zollitsch said.

Narrative vs. Narrative

Merely offering a counter-narrative, however, does not mean that it will win out over the narrative that the media is pushing. Just telling your side of the story does not mean that people will believe it.
One reason many will inevitably look at the bishops' stance with skepticism is that they have a financial interest in people paying the tax.
Because of the tax, the German bishops' conference receives more than 6 billion dollars a year, making it one of the richest bishops conferences in the world.
People are naturally suspicious of those they perceive as being different from themselves, and since most people are not rich, they naturally suspect those who they perceive as commanding vast sums of money, whether it is the government, corporations, or the Church.
"It's doesn't matter what you say, it's all about the money," is the way a suspicious person would look at the subject.
Added to this is the fact that critics of the Church can throw in its face the clerical abuse scandal and point to it as an example of bad faith and bad policy.

Doing the Numbers

That doesn't mean that this jaundiced perspective is correct, however. One could point out that the bishops' policy, at most, deals with a small slice of their income.
There are apparently around 25 million Catholics in Germany, and in recent years only about 150,000 per year have been telling the state that they are no longer Catholics. That amounts to 0.6% of the Catholic population per year. If the Church's policy were to stop that hemorrhaging completely, it would address only a tiny fraction (less than 1%) of the Church's funds.
And there's no guarantee at all that it would do that.
In fact, it might well make the problem worse, either because the press coverage of this issue would get more people thinking about telling the state that they are not Catholics--when otherwise they would have not thought about it or acted on it--or because they will be so alienated by the press coverage of the issue that they get mad and decide to leave the Church, tell the state about it, and decrease their tax bills.
These facts--which the German bishops might well contemplate spelling out (if they haven't already)--suggest that there is something else motivating their policy, that the "It's just about the money" narrative is false.

"If You Deny Me Before Men . . . "

The New Testament is extremely clear about the Christian's duty to profess his faith in Jesus. Consider these verses:

Jesus said: “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:32-33).

Jesus said: “And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God" (Luke 12:8-9).

Jesus said: "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels" (Mark 8:38).

Jesus said: "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels" (Luke 9:26).

"If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us" (2 Tim. 2:12)

So, that's kind of clear, isn't it? Refusal to profess the faith before men means that we will be disowned on Judgment Day. It's a mortal sin.
This is the fact that drove the history of Christian martyrdom--and that continues to drive it today.
Telling the state that you're not a Catholic just so you can get out of paying some taxes is just another form of denying the faith before Caesar.
And it's a pretty lousy form since the threat of death isn't even hanging of you (you're denying the faith for far less), and the taxes you would pay will actually help the Church and help fulfill your duty of supporting the Church according to your means.

Manifest Grave Sin

Since denying your faith before the state is a mortal sin, it is thus potential matter for canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which provides

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

If someone has denied his faith before the state, it's a grave sin. Because he filed paperwork with the state, it's a manifest sin. And if his pastor has talked to him about it and he hasn't turned back then he is obstinately persevering in it.
So I see a possible basis for denying them holy Communion on such grounds.
I don't want to go further into canonical waters, however, until I've seen the actual documents involved and seen competent commentary from others.
My point is that the German bishops may have reasonable grounds for their decree, canonically, either because it merely applies existing provisions of the Church's universal law or because it further specifies that law as particular legislation for Germany.

Understanding the Bishops' Solution

It seems to me that the German bishops are faced with a real problem in terms of how to address the defections from the faith because of the tax issue.
You have people denying the faith before Caesar so that they can have more take-home pay. That's a problem.
Is their solution the best one? That strikes me as an open question, but it doesn't strike me as an on-its-face unreasonable one, and we most certainly should not leap to cynical readings of it. There are sound pastoral reasons for trying to make clear to people that they must not deny their faith to the state. The Church has known that since the beginning of the Christian age.
I thus have sympathy for them and think we should regard their solution as a legitimate pastoral effort to address a real problem.
I also find it interesting that they mention having the Holy See's approval for the decree. Given the explosive nature of the subject--and the fact that it occurs in the pope's homeland--it's hard for me to imagine that the approval was not run past the pope. (At a minimum, if it wasn't run by him, it should have been.) I thus suspect that the decree has Pope Benedict's personal approval.

A Broader Question

Of course, there is a broader question of whether the German church tax system is a good thing or not.
As an American, I'm used to the state not serving as an instrument of collecting funds for the Church and having all such donations be voluntary. I see the benefits of that system, including making room for the practice of virtue and not setting up perverse incentives for people to defect from the Church for tax reasons. And becoming dependent on the state to give you money is never a good thing in itself.
On the other hand, the German Church has certainly benefitted from having the state's efficiency at raising funds, and it is able to do things it otherwise would not be able to. It may, in particular, need those funds to help carry out the New Evangelization in Germany. But there are also costs, including the ones I've mentioned.
You can make your own decision about which system is better in the abstract.
I'd be curious to know what you think.
In particular, I'd be curious to know from those who think that it's a bad thing for the state to have "enforced charity" for the Church if they also think it's a bad thing for the state to conduct "enforced charity" for other causes--like healthcare, poverty relief, etc.
To what extent do the arguments against enforcing charity with regard to the Church apply to other charitable causes? Just what should the state's role be?

ANYONE FOR “SHOCK ART”?

September 27, 2012

Catholic League

Bill Donohue comments as follows:

The Brooklyn Museum of Art displayed a highly offensive
 "Holy Virgin Mary" portrait in 1999.

In the Arts section of today’s New York Times, there is a discussion about the shock value of art. Roberta Smith, co-chief art critic for the Times, cites the “Holy Virgin Mary” portrait that was displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 1999 as one that offended “the tender sensibilities” of some people. She also says that the art, which she notes featured elephant dung on Our Blessed Mother, was “agitated by the Catholic League, Mayor Giuliani and others who never laid eyes on it.

Would homosexuals be guilty of allowing their “tender sensibilities” to skew their thinking if they exploded in anger over an artistic display depicting them as slave masters sodomizing African Americans? Would Jews be guilty of allowing their “tender sensibilities” to cloud their thinking if they objected to art portraying them as Nazi sympathizers?
Muslim sensibilities are not only quite tender, they are respected by the New York Times. That is why the Times refuses to show a still from the recent anti-Islam movie. It also explains why the Times refuses to reprint the Danish cartoons. Perversely, in a column about these cartoons in 2006, the Times decided not to insult Muslims, but it did decide to reprint the dung-on-the-Virgin Mary “art.” Indeed, it did so again today!
Smith is wrong on the facts. I did see the exhibit, but what I saw was not exactly what she describes: she forgot to mention the pictures of vaginas and anuses that were shown alongside the excrement on the Virgin Mary.
Tonight, at 5:30 p.m., I will hold a press conference outside the gallery which is hosting “Piss Christ” at 37 W. 57th Street: my “tender sensibilities” are agitating me once again.

Where is Our Catholic Yom Kippur?

Archdiocese of New York blog
Tuesday, September 25th

We Catholics in New York enjoy the “high holy days” of our Jewish neighbors, and are inspired by the seriousness and sincerity with which they approach their feasts. Join me in wishing them God’s blessings on their special days!

They began their observance last week with Roshashana, the Jewish New Year, and will conclude evening and tomorrow with Yom Kippur, the great Day of Atonement.
The message of their celebrations, if I understand it correctly, is one of spiritual renewal, fresh starts, and repentance. Our Jewish friends pray, fast, reflect, resolve, ask God to forgive their sins as they repent, and start anew with festive meals and gatherings with family and friends!
Not bad at all!
They are only being faithful to their Scriptures. God so often coaxed His Chosen People, “Come back to me with all your heart!” How is that done? God tells us: “A humble, contrite heart I will not spurn.”
There it is again: repentance!
God the Son learned from his Father, because Jesus made repentance the core of His invitation to His followers.
What’s that mean? Simply put, it means turning away from sin and turning to the Person, message, salvation, and call to discipleship of Jesus.
We Catholics used to be constantly aware of this repentance!
Reminisce with me . . .
. . . An examination of conscience and act of contrition prior to falling asleep at night;
. . . frequent confession;
. . . Friday abstinence from meat as an act of penance for our sins, in union with our Lord’s death on that Friday called “good.”;
. . . “Ember Days” – - remember! – - at the change of each season, with fasting and the invitation to the Sacrament of Reconciliation;
. . . Fasting on the vigil of holy days, so we could feast all the better on the day itself;
. . . Never receiving the Eucharist if conscious of grave sin, without first approaching the Sacrament of Penance;
. . . First Friday union with the Sacred Heart of Jesus through confession and Mass;
. . . First Saturday Mass and rosary in response to our Lady’s call at Fatima to conversion of heart and repentance;
. . . Fasting from food at least three hours before Holy Communion;
. . . And, of course, the season of Lent, intended as a forty-day Yom Kippur.
Am I on the wrong track in thinking that most of this is now gone?
Now, I admit, customs, traditions, practices change. Often it’s good when they do.
What can’t change is the call to repentance and conversion of heart at the very core of the Jewish-Christian Scriptures, and of our traditions. The how we respond might change; that we do penance cannot change.
Our Jewish friends have not forgotten about repentance and conversion of heart, as is so obvious in New York these “high holy days.”
Have we Catholics forgotten it?

Hudson and Fournier: Catholic Countdown to Election 2012, Day 40. Beware the 'Catholic' Supporters of Obama

• By Deal W. Hudson & Rev. Mr. Keith A. Fournier
• 9/27/2012
• Catholic Online

We will talk to you tomorrow, and every day between now and November 6th!

Those who have read us both know that we have not always agreed. However, we have chosen to combine our voices at a critical time in U.S. History to do absolutely everything we can do to influence this election! So we will do just that in this series leading to the most important election in our lifetime.

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - We begin our forty day countdown series on the Feast of St. Francis DeSales, a Doctor of the Universal Church who is associated with the undeniable call for Christians to show a "love of preference to the poor". Catholic Social teaching is not "left" or "right", "liberal", "conservative" or "neo-conservative", Democrat or Republican.

It confronts what Pope Benedict properly called the "Dictatorship of Relativism" even before he assumed the Papal office. It insists there are unchangeable truths which are revealed by the Natural Law, can be known through the exercise of reason and should inform the social order in every just society.
At the foundation of all these truths is the truth concerning dignity of every human person at every age and stage. To be Pro-Life is NOT to be "single issue" in your political positions; it is about having a world view. It is the dignity of the human person which requires a respect for every human life whether that life be in the first home of the womb, a wheelchair, a jail cell, a hospital room, a hospice, a senior center or a soup kitchen.
Another one of these truths is that marriage is between one man and one woman, intended for life, and ordered toward the bearing and raising of children in the family. Marriage is not some social construct which can be redefined by courts or legislatures. It is the foundation for family and family is the first society, first church, first school, first economy, first government and first mediating institution. The first community which humanizes and civilizes all of us is the family.
Another is that all human persons created in the Image of God are created for relationship and called to human community. We can never fully experience human flourishing outside of social relationships. These relationships are perfective of our human person because we are by nature - and grace - made for these relationships. Catholic Social Thought does not begin with the individual but with the family. The social doctrine affirms our obligation in solidarity to one another. We are our brother/sister's keeper.
The social doctrine of the Catholic Church rejects a notion of "freedom" which begins and ends with the isolated, atomistic, person as the measure of its application. Authentic human freedom must be exercised within a moral constitution. We will only grow in freedom when we choose what is good and what is true. Otherwise "freedom" becomes a counterfeit and enslaves us, as individuals and as nations.
The social doctrine of the Catholic Church also offers principles to help us order our economies. It does not propose any particular economic theory. It insists that every economic order be at the service of the human person, human freedom, human flourishing and the family. We are to give a love of preference to the poor, recognizing our solidarity with them. However, this call to solidarity is to be applied through the application of the principle of subsidiarity, rejecting all forms of dehumanizing collectivism, either of the left or the right.
The truths and principles contained within Catholic social doctrine are not merely "religious" positions, in the sense that only religious people need assent to them. They are revealed by the Natural Law and can be known through the exercise of reason. The truths are true for all people and for all time. The Church calls us to offer them as leaven to be worked into the loaf of human culture.
So we will do just that in this series leading to the most important election in our lifetime. Those who have read us both know that we have not always agreed. However, we have chosen to combine our voices at a critical time in U.S. History to do absolutely everything we can do to influence this election!
Yes, I (Keith) said it! I can say it "legally" because Catholic Online is not a non-profit corporation and the current censorship of religious speech does not apply here. However, I also say it because too many Catholics and other Christians have not figured out the consequences we face on November 6, 2012 if we do not properly inform our decision on who we will elect to lead us and vote accordingly. I am getting older and I am tired of the arguments that we must look for the "perfect" candidate. There will never be one.
The Catholic supporters of President Obama have started making phone calls to solicit support for their candidate. OK, that's fine -- calls to prospective voters are part of every campaign season. But you won't believe what is being said about Obama, at least from the call received by a Catholic woman who happens to be the chair of her parish ...
pro-life committee. Did you know that Obama did not support abortion, and did you know that Planned Parenthood didn't either? Well, that's what Catholics are being told on the phone by representatives of the President's campaign.
Archbishop John Myers of Newark, NJ has issued a pastoral on marriage "When Two Become One: A Pastoral Teaching on the Definition, Purpose and Sanctity of Marriage," which has raised a media ruckus because the Archbishop has the temerity to tell the Catholics under his care that if they harbor any doubts about the Church's teaching on marriage they should voluntary refrain from taking communion. How dare he, the Archbishop of Newark, do his job, exercise his teaching authority! At least that is the spin being put on it by most of the media. Here is what the Archbishop said, part of one paragraph within a long and comprehensive moral pastoral:
"I urge those not in communion with the Church regarding her teaching on marriage and family (or any other grave matter of faith) sincerely to re-examine their consciences, asking God for the grace of the Holy Spirit which "guide [us] to all truth" (John 16:13). If they continue to be unable to assent to or live the Church's teaching in these matters, they must in all honesty and humility refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they can do so with integrity; to continue to receive Holy Communion while so dissenting would be objectively dishonest."
There is nothing new here, of course, except that the Archbishop has challenged what has now become fixed among most media, that is, any questioning of "same-sex marriage" is bigoted by definition. Perhaps those same media critics will take the time to read the remainder of the pastoral, because Archbishop Myers actually has an argument grounded in centuries of moral teaching and Scriptural authority.
A poll just released by the Susan B. Anthony list corroborates what all religiously-active Catholics already know -- namely, that President Obama's aggressively pro-abortion policies have hurt his standing with Catholic voters in the key battleground states. Key findings from the poll of 650 likely voters are the following:
54 percent of swing voters said they would be less likely -- 35 percent much less likely -- to vote for President Obama after learning that he voted against a law to give equal treatment and constitutional protections to babies born alive after a failed abortion. AND the President's record on the Born-Alive issue costs him support even among his supporters: Nearly half (49 percent) of voters leaning towards voting for President Obama said they would be less likely to do so after learning about his record.
Wow! President Obama should be paying attention to numbers like that! But readers can be sure that Obama and his advisors are paying little attention, hoping that voters will believe the misrepresentations of their surrogates, such as the caller mentioned above.
Now to end on something that will make the reader smile! We truly appreciate Catholics United for providing the comic relief for this tumultuous campaign season. Get this! Catholics United has issued a press release that affirms the "Magisterium" of the New York Times and accuses Catholics of -- take a deep breath -- partisan politics.
This comes from a group, calling itself "Catholic," whose partisanship is completely transparent in its intent -- to gain Catholic support for politicians who support abortion, support same-sex marriage, and support this administration's violation of religious liberty.

We will talk to you tomorrow, and every day between now and November 6th!

-----
Deal W. Hudson is president of the Pennsylvania Catholics Networks and former publisher/editor of Crisis Magazine. Deacon Keith Fournier is the Editor in Chief of Catholic Online and a constitutional lawyer who is currently writing his dissertation for the PhD in Moral Theology at the Catholic University of America.

Today on "Kresta in the Afternoon" - September 27, 2012

Talking about the "things that matter most" on Sept. 27

Live from Redeemer Radio in Fort Wayne, IN

4:00 – Wife of slain West Bloomfield police officer: Catholic faith sustaining me
Amy O’Rourke, is a mother of four and a member of St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Fenton, MI. She is also the wife police officer Patrick O’Rourke who was killed this month after being shot during a standoff late at a home in West Bloomfield, MI. The 39-year-old’s funeral was attended by thousands of friends, family and fellow force members. She wants people to know that her husband would want people to know that he forgives the gunman who shot and killed him and “that he would want the light of Christ, the love of Christ, to shine out of him right now.” She joins us to share her husband’s life, faith and memories

4:40 – Kresta Comments

5:00 – Kateri Tekakwitha, Marianne Cope, Our Sunday Visitor’s 100th Anniversary and 2 New Doctors of the Church Coming in 2 weeks
As we broadcast today from Redeemer Radio in Fort Wayne, IN, Dr. Matthew Bunson joins us in studio to cover a number of topics. We look at his new book on Kateri Tekakwitha, the soon-to-be canonized Marianne Cope, the 100th Anniversary of Our Sunday visitor and the two new doctors of the Church – St. John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen.

How Carter Beat Reagan

By Jeffrey Lord on 9.25.12

American Spectator

 

Washington Post admits polling was "in-kind contribution"; New York Times agenda polling.

Dick Morris is right.
Here'shis column on "Why the Polls Understate the Romney Vote."
Here's something Dick Morris doesn't mention. And he's charitable.
Remember when Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980?
That's right. Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in 1980.

In a series of nine stories in 1980 on "Crucial States" --battleground states as they are known today -- the New York Times repeatedly told readers then-President Carter was in a close and decidedly winnable race with the former California governor. And used polling data from the New York Times/CBS polls to back up its stories.
Four years later, it was the Washington Post that played the polling game -- and when called out by Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins a famous Post executive called his paper's polling an "in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign." Mondale, of course, being then-President Reagan's 1984 opponent and Carter's vice president.
All of which will doubtless serve as a reminder of just how blatantly polling data is manipulated by liberal media -- used essentially as a political weapon to support the liberal of the moment, whether Jimmy Carter in 1980, Walter Mondale in 1984 -- or Barack Obama in 2012.
First the Times in 1980 and how it played the polling game.
The states involved, and the datelines for the stories:

• · California -- October 6, 1980
• · Texas -- October 8, 1980
• · Pennsylvania -- October 10, 1980
• · Illinois -- October 13, 1980
• · Ohio -- October 15, 1980
• · New Jersey -- October 16, 1980
• · Florida -- October 19, 1980
• · New York -- October 21, 1980
• · Michigan -- October 23, 1980

Of these nine only one was depicted as "likely" for Reagan: Reagan's own California. A second -- New Jersey -- was presented as a state that "appears to support" Reagan.
The Times led their readers to believe that each of the remaining seven states were "close" -- or the Times had Carter leading outright.
In every single case the Times was proven grossly wrong on election day. Reagan in fact carried every one of the nine states.
Here is how the Times played the game with the seven of the nine states in question.
Texas: In a story datelined October 8 from Houston, the Times headlined:

Texas Looming as a Close Battle Between President and Reagan

The Reagan-Carter race in Texas, the paper claimed, had"suddenly tightened and now shapes up as a close, bruising battle to the finish." The paper said "a New York Times/CBS News Poll, the second of seven in crucial big states, showing the Reagan-Carter race now a virtual dead heat despite a string of earlier polls on both sides that had shown the state leaning toward Mr. Reagan."
The narrative? It was like the famous scene in the Wizard of Oz where Dorothy and her friends stare in astonishment as dog Toto pulls back the curtain in the wizard's lair to reveal merely a man bellowing through a microphone. Causing the startled "wizard" caught in the act to frantically start yelling, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" In the case of the Timesin its look at Texas in October of 1980 the paper dismissed "a string of earlier polls on both sides" that repeatedly showed Texas going for Reagan. Instead, the Times presented this data:

A survey of 1,050 registered voters, weighted to form a probable electorate, gave Mr. Carter 40 percent support, Mr. Reagan 39 percent, John. B. Anderson, the independent candidate, 3 percent, and 18 percent were undecided. The survey, conducted by telephone from Oct. 1 to Oct. 6, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

In other words, the race in Texas is close, assures theTimes, with Carter actually in the lead.
What happened? Reagan beat Carter by over 13 points. It wasn't even close to close.
• Pennsylvania: The next "Crucial States" story focused on Pennsylvania on October 10. Here the headline read:

Undecided Voters May Prove Key

Reagan, said the Times, "appears to have failed thus far to establish many positive reasons for voting for him."
Once again the paper played the polling data card, this time saying Reagan had a mere 2 point lead. But the Reagan lead was quickly disputed in series of clever ways. Fundraising for Reagan wasn't as good as expected, said the Times, and besides the budget for a Reagan telephone bank being shaved "from $700,000 to $400,000." The Times/CBS poll showed that Carter was ahead of Reagan 36-32 among union households in a heavily labor state. To make matters worse for Reagan the GOP Senate candidate Arlen Specter was being "swamped" in the polls by his Democratic rival, the former Pittsburgh Mayor Pete Flaherty -- with Specter losing to Flaherty 47-36. Not to mention Reagan was being trounced in Philadelphia 52-15 percent. Towards the very end of the story was this interesting line -- a line that should have some relevance to the Romney campaign as President Obama struggles with the consequences of the killing of the American Ambassador in Libya. Reads the sentence:
The narrative for Illinois? Carter is gaining, so much so that:

…uncertainty about Ronald Reagan's leadership, especially among suburban voters, [has] apparently set back Mr. Reagan's hope for a victory in Illinois and left his campaign scrambling to regain lost momentum, according to advisers in both camps.

Then came the usual New York Times/CBS polling data that proclaimed a Reagan one-point lead of 34% to Carter's 33% as a sure sign that "Carter Gains and Reagan Slips in Close Illinois Race" -- as an inside page headline proclaimed.
What happened? Reagan beat Carter by almost 8 points, 49.65% to 41.72%. Again, there was no "close" race as theTimes had claimed.
• Ohio: The headline in this "Crucial States" profile once again conforms to the Times pattern of declaring Reagan and Carter to be in a "close" race.

Ohio Race Expected to Be Close As Labor Mobilizes for President

The narrative for Ohio? Ohio, the paper explained, had been "long viewed by Ronald Reagan's campaign as its best opportunity to capture a major Northern state" but "such a victory …is not yet in hand." Then came the inevitable New York Times/CBS polling data. Reagan was ahead by a bare 2 points, 36% to 34%. Two-thirds of the undecided were women and Reagan was doing "much worse among women voters than men." Carter on the other hand had the great news that "35 percent of the undecided came from labor union households, a group that divides nearly 2-1 for Mr. Carter among those who have made up their minds."
What happened? Reagan beat Carter by over 10 points in Ohio. Yet another "crucial state" race wasn't even close to being close as the paper had insisted.
• Florida: For once, the problem was impossible to hide. The Times headline for its October 19 story headlined:

Carter Is in Trouble With Voters In Two Major Sections of Florida

There was no New York Times/CBS poll here. But what was published was "the most recent Florida Newspapers Poll" that showed Reagan with only a 2 point lead over Carter: 42 for Reagan, 40 for Carter, with 7 for Anderson. The election, said the Timesconfidently, "was widely expected to be close." Surprise!
What happened? Reagan beat Carter in Florida by over 17 points.
• New York: The Times headline for its home state in a story dated October 21?

President is in the Lead, Especially in the City --Anderson Slide Noted

The Times waxed enthusiastic about New York. Reagan was "being hindered by doubts within his own party." And it trotted out its favorite New York Times/CBS Poll to show definitively that Reagan was getting clobbered in New York. The poll, said theTimes, "showed Mr. Carter leading in the state with 38%, to 29% for Mr. Reagan…." Which is to say, Carter was running away with New York state, leading Reagan by 9 points. The headline on the inside of the paper:

One negative reason [meaning an anti-Carter vote] that did not turn up in the telephone poll but came up repeatedly in door-to-door interviews was the hostage situation in Iran.

What happened? The race wasn't close, with Reagan beating Carter in Pennsylvania not by barely 2 points but rather trouncing him by over 7 points. And Arlen Specter beat Pete Flaherty.
• Illinois: The Times headline here in a story October 13?
Reagan Far from Goal in New York; Carter in Lead
Why was this so? Why was Reagan doing so badly in New York? The paper turned to a Carter campaign aide in the state who explained that New Yorkers aren't "willing to vote for a Goldwater." Then they found one "frustrated Republican county chairman" who said the problem with Reagan was that New Yorkers "don't like what they think they know about him." Then there was the usual yada-yada: Reagan was failing miserably with women (losing 41-23 said the poll) and losing in New York City, not to mention that "labor is hard at work" for Carter.
What happened? Reagan beat Carter in New York by over 2 points.
• Michigan: The last of the profiles in theTimes "Crucial States" series was Michigan, published on October 23. The ambiguous headline:

Party Defections May Tip Scales in Michigan Vote

The Michigan story begins with the tale of Reagan being endorsed by Dr. Martin Luther King's famous aide the Reverend Ralph Abernathy. But the Times immediately saw a problem in this backing of Reagan from a prominent "black civil rights leader." The problem? Black backlash. Said the paper:

Mr. Reagan was barely out of town [Detroit] before the backlash set in.
"The Abernathy Betrayal," screamed the headline over the chief article in The Michigan Chronicle, a black newspaper. And yesterday the 400-member Council of Black Pastors, in the greater Detroit area, broke its precedent of refraining from Presidential endorsements and declared its support for President Carter a direct reaction to the Abernathy endorsement.

In other words, Reagan was damned because he didn't get black support -- and damned especially when he did. Grudgingly, the paper admitted that "although the race was close" in Michigan, "Mr. Reagan was ahead." But once again, the Times insisted that a key state race was close. Close, you see, close. Did they mention it was close?
What happened? Reagan carried Michigan by over 6 points, 48.999 to Carter's 42.50. Yet again -- it wasn't close.
That same day, October 23, the paper ran a second polling story on the general status of the presidential election, its theme self-evident:

Poll Shows President Has Pulled To Even Position With Reagan.

The story by Times reporter Hedrick Smith began this way:

In an election campaign reminiscent of the tight, seesaw contest of 1960, President Carter has pulled to an essentially even position with Ronald Reagan over the last month by attracting some wavering Democrats and gaining on his rival among independents, according to a new nationwide survey by The New York Times and CBS News.

The survey, readers were assured, was "weighted to project a probable electorate" and had Carter leading Reagan 39-38.
As if the point hadn't been driven home enough, seven days later on October 30^, the Times decided to sum up the entire race in the light of the just completed Reagan-Carter debate. Can you guess what they said? That's right:

Carter and Reagan Voicing Confidence on Debate Showing: Performances Rated Close

And inside the paper the continuation of the story proclaimed --guess what?

Outcome of Debate Rated as Close.

On November 4 -- the day before the election -- theTimes proclaimed… proclaimed…
Yup:

Race is Viewed as Very Close

The final results?
Ronald Reagan clobbered Jimmy Carter winning 51.7% to Carter's 41% -- a 10 point-plus victory in the popular vote. Third place Congressman John Anderson managed a mere 6.6%.
In the Electoral College? Reagan carried 44 states for a total of 489 votes. Carter won 6 states plus the District of Columbia for 49 electoral votes.
To say the least, the race wasn't "close." To compare it to 1960 as a "tight, seesaw contest" was in fact not simply ridiculously untrue but bizarre.
So what do we have here?
What we have is the liberal "paper of record" systematically presenting the 1980 Reagan-Carter election in 9 "Crucial States" as somehow "close" in five of the nine -- Texas, Illinois, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. New York was in the bag for Carter. Only in his own California and New Jersey was Reagan clearly leading.
The actual results had only New York "close" -- with Reagan winning by 2. Reagan carried every other "close" state by a minimum of 6 points and as much 17 -- Florida. Florida, in fact, went for Reagan by a point more than California and about 4 more than New Jersey.
How could the New York Times -- its much ballyhooed polling data and all of its resulting stories proclaiming everything to be "close" -- been so massively, continuously wrong? In the case of its "Crucial States" -- nine out of nine times?
The obvious answer is called to mind by a polling story from four years later involving Ronald Reagan and his next opponent, Jimmy Carter's vice president Walter Mondale.
By 1984, Reagan was an extremely popular incumbent president. He was running well everywhere against Mondale. But suddenly, up popped a curious Washington Post poll that indicated Reagan's 1980 margin of over 16% in California had dropped precipitously to single digits. Nancy Reagan was alarmed, calling campaign manager Ed Rollins (full disclosure, my former boss) and saying, "You have to do something."
Rollins disagreed, as he later wrote in his memoirs Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms: My Life in American Politics.
A Californian himself Rollins was certain Reagan was just fine in California. The Reagan campaign's own polls (run by Reagan's longtime pollster Dick Wirthlin) showed Reagan with a "rock-solid" lead. After all, said Rollins, "Californians knew Ronald Reagan, and either loved him or hated him. He'd been on the ballot there six times and never lost." The Post poll data made no sense. But Mrs. Reagan was insistent, so Rollins ordered up another (expensive) poll from Dick Wirthlin. Rollins also dispatched longtime Reagan aide and former White House political director Lyn Nofziger, a Californian as well, back to the Reagan home precincts. More phone banks were ordered up. In all, a million dollars of campaign money that could have been spent on Minnesota -- Mondale's home state where the ex-Minnesota Senator was, remarkably, struggling -- was spent on California because of the Washington Post poll.
A few weeks later, the Washington Post ran a story that confirmed Rollins' initial beliefs. The Post confessed that… well… oops… it had made a mistake with those California polling numbers. Shortly afterward came the November election, with California once again giving Reagan a more than 16 point victory. In fact, Reagan carried 49 states, winning the greatest landslide victory in presidential history while losing Minnesota in -- yes --a close race. Mondale had 49.72% to Reagan's 49.54%, a difference of .18% that might have been changed by all that money that went into California. Making Reagan the first president in history to win all fifty states.
After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post's blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and "harassed" Bradlee "about his paper's lousy polling methodology."
Bradlee's "unrepentant" response?

"Tough sh…t, Rollins, I'm glad it cost you plenty. It's my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign."

Got that?
So the questions for 2012.
How corrupt are all these polls showing Obama leading or in a "close race"?
Are they to Obama what that California poll of theWashington Post was for Walter Mondale -- an "in-kind contribution"?
Is that in fact what was going on with the New York Times in 1980? An "in-kind contribution" to the Carter campaign from the Times?
What can explain all these polls today -- like the ones discussed hereat NBC where the Obama media cheerleaders make their TV home? Polls that the Obama media groupies insist show Obama 1 point up in Florida or 4 points in North Carolina or 5 points in Pennsylvania. And so on and so on.
How does one explain a president who, like Jimmy Carter in 1980, is increasingly seen as a disaster in both economic and foreign policy? How does a President Obama, with a Gallup job approval rating currently at 49% -- down a full 20% from 2009 --mysteriously win the day in all these polls?
How does this happen?
Can you say "in-kind contribution"?