Category Archives: politics

Dr. John Bruchalski Presentation “The Struggle Making Abortion Safe, Legal, and Rare” at Med Students for Life 2012 National Spring Tour

Dr. John Bruchalski, a former abortionist and now pro-life OB/GYN, is the founder of the Tepeyac Family Center in Fairfax, Virginia which is one of the only all pro-life OB/GYN health care practices in the nation. He is a dynamic and engaging speaker whose story and style reaches people on all sides of the culture battle and shows them the value of an evidence-based approach to medicine and the value of treating the whole person. The following Med Students for Life video presentation was recorded at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey forum. (Appx. 45 min.)

Are Judges More Hostile to Religion Than Founding Fathers Intended?

A recent poll conducted by Ramussen Research shows most Americans answer yes to the question whether judges are more hostile to religion than the founding fathers planned.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of American Adults now believe rulings by judges in recent years regarding religion in public life have been more anti-religious than the Founding Fathers of the country intended. The Rasmussen national telephone survey found that 28% disagree and believe the judges have correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution. Nineteen percent (19%) were not sure.

What did the founders intend? The survey does not explore that question, but the Constitution does give us a good idea of their plan. The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” If Congress cannot not make laws to establish any particular religion or prohibit the exercise of religious views, the Courts cannot interpret laws respecting religion and its private or public practice. However, what states do concerning establishing religions and religious practices is not the business of federal Courts or activists members like the ACLU lawyers. That seemed to be at least part of founders plan.

TMLC Files Lawsuit Challenging the HHS Mandate On Behalf of Legatus – Nation’s Largest Organization of Top Catholic Business Leaders

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced it has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the HHS mandate, on behalf of Legatus, the Nation’s largest organization of top Catholic business CEOs and professional leaders.

Also joining in the lawsuit as Plaintiffs are the Weingartz Supply Company, a Michigan retailer since 1945, and its President who is a member of Legatus. The 42-page Complaint was filed late yesterday afternoon against the Obama administration in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Legatus” is the Latin word for “ambassador”, and its members are called upon to become “ambassadors for Christ” in living and sharing their Catholic Faith in their business, professional and personal lives. It was founded in 1987 by Tom Monaghan, the former owner of Domino’s Pizza, to bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life – Faith, Family and Business. The lawsuit was filed on the 25th Anniversary of its founding. Legatus currently has over 4,000 members in 73 chapters located in 31 states.

The first paragraph of the lawsuit succinctly sets forth the nature of the case:

“This is a case about religious freedom. Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father of our country, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third president, when describing the construct of our Constitution proclaimed, ‘No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.’”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented, “Whether you are a Catholic or Protestant or have no religion at all, the free exercise of religion and right of conscience is our most fundamental human right and must be vigorously defended on behalf of all Americans. Or else our constitution becomes nothing more than a piece of paper with nice sounding words. That’s why I believe every American regardless of religious beliefs has a stake in the successful outcome of this lawsuit.”

The purpose of the lawsuit is to seek a court ruling that permanently blocks the implementation of the HHS Mandate requiring employers and individuals to obtain insurance coverage for abortions and contraception on the grounds that it imposes clear violations of conscience on Americans who morally object to abortion and contraception.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the HHS Mandate under the First Amendment rights to the Free Exercise of Religion and Free Speech and the Establishment Clause. It also claims that the HHS Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedure Act enacted by Congress.

Thomas More Law Center attorney, Erin Mersino, is the lead counsel in the lawsuit. Joining as co-counsel is the Law Office of Charles LiMandri, the Law Center’s West Coast Regional Director and a member of Legatus.

Named as Defendants in the lawsuit are Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Hilda Solis, Secretary of the Department of Labor; Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Department of Treasury; and their respective departments.

The Crony System That Makes Israelis Poorer

By Daniel Doron

Last summer’s peaceful mass demonstrations in Israel protested economic hardships resulting from excessive government interference in the economy.

The protests were ignited by Izhak Elrov, a young religious father who started a Facebook page calling for the boycott of one consumer item, cottage cheese, which was selling in Israel for double what it cost abroad. Mr. Elrov protested that price-gouging by Israeli monopolies had inflated the price of most consumer goods and services by 100% to 300% over average European and American prices. One hundred thousand Israelis “liked” his page. Hundreds picketed supermarkets.

Mr. Elrov’s one-issue boycott eventually was taken over by populist groups demanding cheap housing and free preschool education, then it was seized upon by well-funded leftist political groups pushing an “Occupy Wall Street” anticapitalist agenda and trying to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu’s pro-market government. By summer’s end, the protests had fizzled, with many Israelis disenchanted by these hidden agendas.

But the core truth of Mr. Elrov’s lament remained. Even before the cottage-cheese boycott, the prime minister had appointed a commission to deal with Israel’s extraordinary concentration of political and economic power. The latter had become the center of public furor after an April 2010 Bank of Israel report affirmed that “some 20 family business groups, structured as pyramids, control some 25% of firms listed for trading, about half of the market share.” The report also noted that a mere handful of business groups received over 60% of Israel’s available credit, which they invested in highly leveraged and speculative real-estate ventures.

Clearly, such concentration creates great risk for Israeli financial markets. It also denies small and medium-size businesses access to credit, blocking Israel’s engines of growth. Two major regions, the southern Negev and the northern Galilee, with mostly small businesses, have suffered a permanent credit crunch. Living on average monthly salaries of $2,400, according to official figures, and having to pay for most consumer goods and services at prices similar to those in New York City, most Israeli families have difficulty making ends meet.

Unfortunately, political necessity dictated that the commission Mr. Netanyahu charged to investigate these problems was composed partly of regulators who had failed in the past to tackle excessive concentration. One result is that its final recommendations, released last month, did not call for banning all pyramid-structured holding companies. The commission called for a separation of ownership between financial and nonfinancial firms. But it fixed too high a threshold—an annual turnover of $1.6 billion dollars—for the separation. Still, even these limited recommendations could improve Israeli credit allocation and competitiveness.

Following last summer’s protests, Mr. Netanyahu appointed another commission, this one to deal with issues of preschool education, cheaper housing and lower consumer prices. As a result, “free” elementary school education was extended to children ages 3 to 6.

Mr. Netanyahu’s government recently appointed a legal group to draft legislation based on the recommendations of “the anti-concentration” commission. But that group is composed mostly of the same regulators who are halfhearted about reform. And if the recommendations get to legislators, they will face a tough battle in the parliament, where the tycoons and their powerful lobbyists will fight them.

Strong vested interests blocking progress are not unique to Israel. Everywhere, powerful elites manage to erect entry barriers that cut competition, reduce efficiency and lower productivity. Generally impoverished Islamic countries are extreme examples of the ravages caused by such entrenched elites.

Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s first prime minister to understand economics, realized that economic viability is essential to Israel’s survival and initiated bold reforms. He faces resistance from his bureaucracy and some coalition partners serving the tycoons and their lobbyists. Despite this and great challenges such as Iran and the prospect of new elections, Mr. Netanyahu could still convene a special session of parliament before the fall elections and pass the reforms he deems essential.

Mr. Doron is founder-director of The Israel Center for Social & Economic Progress (ICSEP), a public policy think tank, and a fellow of the Middle East Forum. His article was originally published in the Wall Street Journal on May 3, 2012.

Back Door Approach To Bail Out Funding

By Daniel Downs

Not long ago, the big news was Obama’s bailout of General Motors. In 2011, US Treasury reported that GM had paid back most of the large loan. However, the Treasury also notified the public that the federal government had become a permanent shareholder. The percent stock holdings amounted to something like 30 percent. Obviously, Uncle Obama and company wanted taxpayer-funded bailout to accumulate a long-term return on the investment.

It appears Obama is getting his way with the wealth. We could call it the back door method of taxing corporate profits.

Another interesting development recently reported by General Motors was the substantial increase of GM autos being sold to China markets. GM reported an 11.7% increase in sales in April and 9.4% for the first quarter in 2012. Total first quarter unit sales was 972,369. That’s nearly one million news vehicles cruising down Chinese pavement. If the trend continues, the federal government should see an increase of about 10-15% in revenues from GM net profits.

That is how our new schools should have always been funded. It would be a win-win for local taxpayers. Funding empire through back door taxation of corporate profits may only benefit the select few, most of whom are like Obama have a million plus portfolio of wealth.

Nevertheless, Chinese consumption is still underwriting a significant portion our government’s imperial spending spree.

When Political Correctness Kills

By Adam Turner

Starting on March 11 and ending on March 19, a terrorist wearing a motorcycle helmet that covered his face conducted a vicious killing spree in Toulouse, France, murdering three French military officers (two of Arab ancestry, one of Caribbean ancestry) and four French Jewish civilians (a 30-year-old Rabbi, his 5-year-old son, his 4-year-old son and an 8-year-old girl). Much speculation as to the possible motives and background of the terrorist followed. On March 21, 2012, the French armed forces surrounded an apartment in Toulouse where the killer lived and released his identity: It was a French Islamist named Mohammed Merah. On March 22, Merah was shot dead while jumping out of his apartment window

What was most disturbing about this terrorist act — aside from its occurrence — was that the elite Western public officials’ and media’s speculation about the true killer, prior to the discovery of his identity, heavily focused (also here and here and here) on the belief that he was a white European neo-Nazi, or perhaps another Anders Breivik, a white, European Christian killer who hated Islam and may have hated Jews.

Granted, the fact that both French Muslims and French Jews had been killed, and the fact that some neo-Nazis had recently been dismissed from the French military, made this a plausible assumption. But it was not the only possible assumption, and it was almost certainly not the most likely one.

The most likely assumption was what was eventually found to be true — that the killer was a Muslim jihadist who hated Jews and hated those “traitorous” fellow Muslims who served in the “infidel” French army. Indeed, not to toot my own horn, but this was my initial belief. The neo-Nazi Frenchmen who were originally focused on had never been accused of any actual violence against anyone, unlike the actual killer, Mohammed Merah.

Merah had numerous acts of violence on his record along with two short prison terms, in 2007 and 2009. And there was plenty more circumstantial evidence pointing to Merah. He had made two trips to Afghanistan and one to Pakistan — vacationing in a war zone, he claimed — had trained in a jihadist camp in Afghanistan, had been caught planting bombs in Afghanistan in 2007 but escaped from jail in 2008 to return to France, terrorized his French neighbors who in 2010 reported him to the police as a physical threat, was arrested in 2011 during his second trip to Afghanistan and sent back to Toulouse, was under surveillance by French authorities since 2008 for his Islamist beliefs and was even on a U.S. no-fly list. In fact, it turns out that after the first terror attack, Merah was actually placed on a list of possible suspects alongside his older brother Abdelkader, but little was done to trace either of them until after the Jewish school massacre, when the police secured the mobile phone of the first victim, the soldier in Montauban, which showed conversations between him and Merah.

Aside from this evidence, there were other good reasons why the police and observers should have suspected an Islamist killer. Since the 1990s, a large majority of the acts of terrorism in the West have been conducted by Islamic jihadists. This is simply a fact. According to one unscientific count, since 1992 there have been 72 Islamist terrorist attacks on Western targets. Taking a more global view, others cite a number of 18,616 terrorist attacks by jihadists since 9/11. Max Boot says “it is undeniable that the most prominent acts of terrorism in the past several decades have been committed by Islamists, whose ideology has displaced Marxism and even nationalism as the primary propellant for terrorism, as it was in the 1960s-1970s.”

Meanwhile, during this same time, there have been very few non-Islamist acts of terrorism. The two most commonly mentioned are the attacks in Oklahoma City in 1995 and in Oslo, Norway in 2011. Breivik, by the way, was not a neo-Nazi, nor a Christian fundamentalist; he was ruled “a paranoid schizophrenic” by a Norwegian court.

Yet, in 2012, when these brutal acts of terrorism occurred in France, the immediate working assumption by the Western elites was that the perpetrator was a neo-Nazi. Let’s be very clear about this. We all understand why this delusional thinking occurs — the desire to be politically correct and to not single out a specific religion as producing most of the world’s terrorists for the past few decades. But facts are facts, and these PC feelings are dangerous. In the Toulouse case, Mohammed Merah was not even hiding, he was sitting in his apartment because he was “confident that police sought a neo-Nazi.” It is even possible that he might have been caught sooner, perhaps prior to the killing of the children, had the French tracked down this terrorist criminal who was well-known to them.

Please remember, political correctness kills. Just ask them.

Adam Turner is Staff Counsel for The Middle East Forum’s Legal Project. The above article was originally published by Daily Caller on March 23, 2012.

The Bullying that U.S. Law Protects

By Judie Brown

Whenever I hear or read of a news story involving the problem of bullying, my husband always reminds me that, as the youngest of four boys, he was bullied from the moment he could walk! I suppose that, because brothers will be brothers, in retrospect this is rather funny and is likely to be expected in a house full of boys. But that was then; this is now.

In today’s cultural climate, however, we are not talking about the taunts of a sibling. In fact, today, bullying and the actions many educational institutions are taking to prevent it make headlines with regularity. The reason is perhaps best defined by the National Crime Prevention Council, which reports, “Bullying has become a tidal wave of epic proportions. Although bullying was once considered a rite of passage, parents, educators, and community leaders now see bullying as a devastating form of abuse that can have long-term effects on youthful victims, robbing them of self-esteem, isolating them from their peers, causing them to drop out of school, and even prompting health problems and suicide.”

Undoubtedly there should be no place in a civilized society for brutality among classmates, on college campuses, or anywhere—including the family, which is often scarred beyond belief by abusive authority figures or inhumane acts perpetrated against those who are helpless. For example, could you ever have imagined a time in America’s history when commentators would be addressing a mother’s spoken desire to terminate the lives of her disabled children?

Or could we have ever imagined news reports about men who do not want their girlfriends or wives to be pregnant and subsequently brutalize them or even kill either the preborn child or both mother and child?

With all this violence and abuse being discussed, it is amazing that none take note of the underlying cause of this increasing exhibition of brutality. The fundamental problem that has aggravated human aggression, pitted the strong against the weak, destroyed families, and turned American values upside down is abortion. The violence that concerns so many in America today got a jump start when the Supreme Court chose to permit the ultimate child abuse by ignoring the result of the act of abortion in deference to the rights of the mother.

This deadly war is waged daily pitting mothers against their innocent preborn babies, pitting the strong against the weak, and pitting truth against fabrication. And sadly the lies have won the day and thus the acts that result from a callous disregard for human life go on and on, becoming ever more threatening not only to the expectant mother and her child, but to the society in which we live.

As long as America condones the act of abortion, and her citizens believe that it is nothing more than a choice a woman has a right to make, we will witness ongoing dastardly deeds of hatred perpetrated against those who are less fortunate—including the poor, minorities, children, and the infirm. What has happened to our national sense of justice, our concern for the weakest members of the human family? It has evaporated in an era of tolerance and delusion.

It seems to me that if, for example, our president can create a special agency to address atrocities abroad, he could most certainly address the horrors imposed on the innocent in the womb that he knowingly persists in condoning right here on American soil.

Why does America have a bullying problem? Because we are the bullies!

Judie Brown is co-founder of the American Life League, a grassroots Catholic pro-life education organization committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death.

Pro-Abortion and Pro-Homosexual Youth Lobby Sent Home Empty-Handed from UN

By Timothy Herrmann

NEW YORK, May 4 (C-FAM) Youth activists arrived at the UN in droves last week in an attempt to hijack the 45th session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) by promoting homosexual rights and abortion. However, countries rejected their demands and produced a fairly balanced outcome document that focuses on more pressing youth concerns like education, employment, health and development.

Sponsored by organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Youth Coalition, and the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC), youth activists flooded the conference floor and were strategically placed on country delegations with the hope of shifting the conference’s focus to sexual and reproductive health of youth and adolescents.

Throughout the week, they lobbied country delegates to place controversial language in the outcome document that would undermine the right and responsibility of parents in the sexual education of their children and include sexual and reproductive health “rights” as well as comprehensive sexuality education (CSE).

Though comprehensive sexual education was eventually included in the document, countries refused to mention it without reference to “the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents” to provide “appropriate direction and guidance on sexual and reproductive matters.” Similarly, any reference to sexual and reproductive rights in the document was explicitly understood by countries not to include abortion as a method of family planning.

Even more disappointing for radical activist groups was the exclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity language used by the homosexual lobby to promote homosexual rights at the UN. The Arab group and a majority of the African countries along with the help of the Holy See, the Russian Federation, and Pakistan threw out the only reference to sexual orientation in the final draft of the document on the last day of the conference.

While the exclusion of “sexual orientation” appears to be a victory, the UN dialect is so misleading that the single mention that does exist in the document of the right to “decide freely and responsibly on matters related to…sexuality” greatly worried delegations like Uganda, who believed it was an attempt by countries supportive of homosexual rights to sneak in new language.

In addition, even though the conference theme was “Adolescents and Youth,” countries could not agree upon the definition of either term. Initially, they were defined as falling within the ages of 10 and 24 but given that the document mentions sexual and reproductive rights, countries were unwilling to afford these rights to 10 year olds and the definition proved too controversial to include.

Despite the hard fought battle of many delegations to move beyond reproductive rights and, instead, secure strong references to education, employment and the Millennium Development Goals in the document, the serious misgivings among countries related to the reproductive rights and sexuality of youth made it nearly impossible to reach consensus. As a result the chairman of the Population Commission took it upon himself to put together the final outcome document, or chairman’s text, which even he admitted, “was not completely satisfactory to all.”

Timothy Hermann is Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute’s Representative to the United Nations. His article first appeared in Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

Arizona Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood, While Defunding Efforts Continue in Ohio!

The Arizona senate passed (18-8) the Whole Women’s Health Priority Act last week, which would defund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood of state family planning money. This bill has passed through the House and Senate, and is now headed for the desk of Governor Jan Brewer to be signed into law.

If Governor Brewer passes the bill, Arizona would join nine other states that voted to strip Planned Parenthood of tax-payer funding in 2011. These nine states were responsible for pulling over $61 million from the abortion giant PP over the course of a single year. Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report shows that they receive over $487 million in federal funding every year. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion chain in the United States and commits over 300,000 abortions each year, so with each defunding, the lives of innocent unborn children in each of those states could be saved.

The efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are going strong in other states, as well. Last week, a provision to strip federal funding from Planned Parenthood was abruptly stopped by lawmakers in Ohio, but efforts are underway for an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood in Ohio in the near future. Other states are working towards a full defunding of Planned Parenthood, and we must continue to encourage them to follow the lead of Arizona and the eight other states who have claimed pro-life victories over the past year.

Source: Email from LifeAction.org on May 3, 2012.

Opposing the CRC from Within

By Michael Ramey

Every so often we get the question: If the Convention on the Rights of the Child is as dangerous as we warn, where are the complaints from those who have already signed on to it? What do those who have lived with it for the last 20 years have to say?

On November 24, 2011, more than 120 non-profit organizations from the Russian Federation and Ukraine gathered in St. Petersburg to adopt a joint statement answering that very question.

The result is the St. Petersburg Resolution on the Anti-Family Trends in the United Nations, on the Unacceptable Actions of the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Monitoring Bodies, and on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a Communications Procedure. As you could no doubt surmise from the title, they share a lot of our concerns.

The St. Petersburg Resolution contains 16 articles declaring the conviction of the signatories that the United Nations and its treaty-monitoring bodies routinely overstep the mission and authority granted to them by those documents. The committees which oversee the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) are specifically called out.

Article 9 is especially relevant to our own cause and concerns. In it, these internal witnesses “insist that states should respect the unique role and position that natural (biological) parents have in the lives of their children. Any interpretations of any provision under the international or national law should reflect the natural presumption that natural parents usually act in good faith and in the best interests of their children…. We are strongly concerned over the existing unfounded and hazardous interpretation of Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, regarding the government as having authority to control and supervise the life of any family and the decisions of any parent under the pretext of providing ‘the best interests of the child’.”

Additionally, Article 13 expresses our shared concern over the tendency of the CRC committee to interpret the treaty “in ways that create new state obligations or that alter the substance of the treaties.” The resolution cites as a clear example the committee’s assertion of an all-out ban on all corporal punishment, even in the home – in contravention of the CRC itself as interpreted under the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In response, the Resolution states, “we regard those actions and interpretations of UN treaty monitoring bodies as unacceptable and undermining the genuine basics of international law.”

Unfortunately for the people of Russia and Ukraine, the St. Petersburg Resolution is not binding in any way. For them, it is an instrument by which to urge their governments not to ratify the new Optional Protocol on a Communications Procedure, which would grant even more authority to the rogue Committee on the Rights of the Child.

For us, the resolution provides testimony from within the nations of the CRC which we will share with Congress and the Senate. This testimony makes clear, from those who have lived under the CRC, that it is not something we would want to adopt here in the United States.

Michael Ramey is Director of Communications & Research at Parental Rights. For more information about Parental Rights, visit www.parentalrights.org.