CAPITAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN

- Hallo friendsCAPITAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article ADVENTURE, Article ANIMATION, Article LATEST DONGENG, Article WORLD OF ANIMALS, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title :
link :

http://ift.tt/2ihVQGgT. CO

Sun., Sept.17, 2017

~All Gave Some~Some Gave All~ God Bless America~

Georgette Keller (Our oldest daughter)

1 hr · Suffolk County, NY ·

Reposting Medical need.

My friend, whose son was badly injured in an auto accident, was just told that we need to find their own ambulatory airplane to transport their son to Atlanta, when the time comes 😳 so if anyone has any connections to an ambulatory airplane and pilot, please let us know.

 

 

School Fears “USA” Chant Could be Intolerant and Offensive
By Todd Starnes/Twitter

There are a lot of patriotic students at Vista Del Lago High School in Folsom, California. So you can imagine their shock when they were warned that chanting “USA” at sporting events and pep rallies could appear to be inappropriate and intolerant.

Television station CBS 13 in Sacramento reports that school leaders feared the chants could come across as intolerant and offensive to some.

“We can communicate an unintended message,” the school’s principal wrote in a letter to parents.

What would the unintended message be – that young people still love the red, white and blue – that they want to make America great again?

Folsom Cordova Unified Communications Director Daniel Thigpen told the television station they have not banned the chant. They just want young people to be more considerate when they chant.

“To practice empathy, to practice kindness and to practice patriotism – you can do both,” Thigpen said.

The school’s principal suggested there are appropriate times to chant – like following the national anthem or the Pledge of Allegiance.

“I think it's really sad that chanting USA in our country has even become a negative thing,” one parent told the television station.

The California Interscholastic Federation notified school districts across the state about concerns the “USA” chant might be used in a derogatory manner.

But that does not appear to be the case at Vista Del Lago High School.

“To say USA, you know, we’re all the same,” student Ryan Bernal told the television station. “We’re all American. It doesn’t matter what your skin tone is or where you’re from.”

That young man has more common sense that most of the grownups in charge of the school district.

“We’re all one,” Ryan said. “We all stand as one together.”

It should be stressed that there’s never been a complaint about the “USA” chants – not one.

The only people expressing angst about public demonstrations of America pride are school staffers.

Perhaps the school district should be more concerned about the unintended message that sends.

A Special Kind of Stupid

Tom Shattuck, Boston Herald

Stupidity is as American as baseball.

This summer the World Series of Stupid has taken place at Fenway Park. Wednesday night a dim-witted band of social justice warriors unfurled a banner on the left field wall which read, “Racism is as American as baseball.”

It took five of them to come up with that sad and mangled attempt at profundity. Many in the park wondered whether the sentiment was pro- or anti-racism.

When CSNNE reporter Evan Drellich caught up with them, they expounded in an equally flaccid manner, saying, “We want to remind everyone that just as baseball is fundamental to American culture and history, so too is racism. … White people need to wake up to this reality before white supremacy can truly be dismantled.”

How long must we suffer these morons?

Maybe for as long as both public and private institutions quiver in fear every time some activist pulls some asinine stunt.

When racist language is reported by questionable sources and corroborated by no one, the Red Sox jump into action — never adjudicating the facts and ever so quick to implicitly condemn their own fan base.

The perp in one case was banned for life by the team. (Not so for the wannabe heroes of this week’s banner flap.)

When a radio talker for the Sox flagship radio station criticized the team over the matter, he was missing in action the next day.

John Henry, when asked, was suddenly “haunted” by his team’s racist past and ready to change the name of Yawkey Way.

Weaklings like the Red Sox make it easy for the bullies — usually college kids with no real accomplishments — to play ‘make-believe’ as civil rights heroes. And the Red Sox play right along.

The thing is, of course, that you’d be hard pressed to find a white supremacist around here. Or anywhere. There is no white nationalist party with any power or influence in the United States. There is no threat. Their tenured post-modernist professor will tell them there is a threat by day and Stephen Colbert will by night but it’s not true.

This is all a result of the easy brainwashing of millennials who have extended their infancies for years by living at home, existing almost entirely on the internet and being best friends with mom and dad instead of striking out and living lives and learning a damned thing.

They are, as comedian Owen Benjamin calls them, “indoor cats.”

They’ve got no real life experiences and so are compelled to fill the romantic corners of their minds with noble role playing in the form of (in this case) illiterate activism. They unfurl banners, kneel for the anthem, and disrupt everything they can.

The service of the military veteran the Red Sox were honoring during the banner incident is true heroism. Getting booted from Fenway over said banner is the participation trophy version.

And the Boston Red Sox are right there to validate them.

(Tom Shattuck is the last WRKO producer I had. He’s a good man and demonstrates insight in his  columns...Moe Lauzier)

Rewriting American History: The Fallacies Behind Statue Removal

“He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool..."
By Richard Larsen

Following the Charlottesville, Virginia demonstrations, a national movement seems to have taken root to remove all vestiges of America’s Civil War. The movement, obviously based on emotion, is attempting to rewrite our national history, is orchestrated by extreme factions of the left, and, perhaps not surprisingly, is opposed by most Americans.

The Civil War is a historical verity, and the symbols associated with it are not inherently “racist,” even though they are presumed to be by a small faction of our populace to whom everything is somehow “racist” or race-based. While the underlying issues leading to the Southern states’ secession from the United States were economic, the trigger for the Civil War was their attempt to secede from and attack the Union, which Lincoln and the Northern states deemed anathema. The Constitution was predicated upon the inviolability of the union or federation of states, and with the South’s declared secession and attack on Fort Sumter, the war began.

As History.com explains, “On 12 April 1861, a military unit representing the Confederate States of America, the seven Southern states that had seceded from the Union, attacked Fort Sumter. The presence of the Union-controlled post in South Carolina provoked Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, to order strikes. Within two days, the commander stationed at Sumter surrendered. But the assault spurred United States President Abraham Lincoln to rally thousands of troops to crush what he viewed as an insurrection ripening in the South. With that, the Civil War began. ‘Both sides deprecated war,’ Lincoln remarked later, ‘but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.’”

Would the Civil War have occurred without slavery being a significant component of the South’s economic system? No, of course not. But to them it was just that, a principal component to their economy. Although slavery was primarily race-based, they didn’t view it through 21st century lenses as racism; it was as much a part of their economy as tractors are to today’s agrarian producers.

The moral argument against slavery had taken hold across much of the Northern states, but the moral argument for it, from the Southern plantation landowner’s perspective, was no less viable; the northern states had no right to dictate the terms of their economic production.

Consequently, to the South, the Confederate battle flag (which was just one of five flags flown by the Confederacy) represents freedom from tyranny, and states’ rights for self-determination. It was not a symbol of slavery, of “racism” or of oppression against blacks; it was, admittedly ironically, a symbol of freedom. As such, the Confederate battle flag became the rallying banner for the Southern states.

The same principle applies to those historical figures who fought for Southern freedom against what they perceived to be the tyranny of the Northern states. Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and other prominent Confederate heroes were not deemed such because they supported slavery or for being racists. They were deemed heroes because they fought for Southern freedom with bravery, valor and, for the most part, dignity. They characterized the pride of the South.

What contemporary “racism” accusers are engaging in is a set of logical fallacies that vitiate their argument. The first is the etymological fallacy, where a word in contemporary usage is fallaciously presumed to mean the same today as it did in a former era. The second logical error is the historian’s fallacy, where it is assumed that decision-makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the situation. The third fallacy is presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.

Most Americans get it. It’s part of our history, and retrofitting our contemporary “morality” to a bygone era is no less than an attempt to rewrite our history. Just as individuals are largely the sum of their historical experiences, including their successes and failures, so likewise a nation’s history defines a country, and our ability to apply our founding principles to our economic reality within the first century of our existence represents a significant cultural and political achievement.

A new Marist poll sponsored by NPR and PBS NewsHour finds that 62 percent of Americans believe statues of Confederate leaders should be allowed to stand. Even a majority of self-identified “Soft Democrats” say Confederate monuments should remain.

The survey of 1,125 adults (at least 18 years of age), conducted August 14-15 queried what respondents thought of statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy. Nearly two thirds of the respondents said they should “remain as a historical symbol,” with Democrats at 44 percent, Republicans at 86 percent, and independents at 61 percent. An average of 27 percent of all respondents thought they should “be removed because they are offensive to some people.” Only 10 percent were “unsure.”

If we become such a wimpy and spineless society, collectively and individually, where everything is removed because someone might be “offended,” we will literally have nothing left! And certainly nothing of our history or the iconography of how we have evolved and changed over the centuries will remain.

As Brigham Young said, “He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.” And contrary to what some suppose, there is no First Amendment right to not be offended. We can choose individually, and collectively as a society, whether to allow someone or something to have sufficient power over us to create offense. It’s time to grow up, and stop perambulating through our lives with a chip on our shoulder just hoping someone might come along and knock it off! And rewriting our history does not alter the reality; it only adulterates it and dumbs down the populace.

Comey Busted In Major Criminal Cover-Up
Mark Prvulovic

CLICK TO JOIN

Unfortunately for former FBI Director James Comey, it seems that more puzzle pieces are beginning to fall into place regarding his past involvement with the Clintons. Now the picture is getting clearer, as Comey’s history of covering for their crimes goes even deeper than first believed.

A new Twitter post is showing a newspaper dating back to July 21, 1996, in which James Comey closed a clemency probe related to a top supporter of Bill Clinton. It seems that as far back as 20 years ago, Comey has been covering up for Clinton scandals.

The newspaper proceeds to mention that federal prosecutors had closed their investigation concerning Bill Clinton’s grant of clemency to four men accused of bilking the government of millions of dollars.

James Comey, who was the US attorney for the case, said that they ended their investigation with no charges filed. “We thoroughly investigated it and it wasn’t appropriate to bring charges against anybody in the case,” he said.

Comey continued, saying, “I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges. That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.” Comey refused to provide any further elaboration into his decision.

The case in question involved the misappropriation of tens of millions of dollars in federal aid intended for education, housing, and business in the Rockland County Hasidic community of New Square. The men in question were accused of using the money to enrich their community as well as themselves.

The missing link in the matter is that the village leaders had aggressively courted Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the community had voted demonstrably in favor of Hillary Clinton’s Senate election – winning 1,400 of New Square’s 1,412 votes. This has raised questions as to whether Clinton pardoned these four individuals as a favor in exchange for their support of his wife’s political career.

In the investigation, the Rockland County Democrat Party records were confiscated, and many politicians and community members testified before a grand jury. Although no specific crimes were specified, legal experts speculated that charges would have included bribery and voter fraud.

The mastermind of the group, Chaim Berger, 76, ended up pleading guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison as well as ordered to pay more than $11 million in restitution.

De Blasio Taps Left-Wing Friend Belafonte to Judge NYC Statues

By Bill Donohue

Harry Belafonte (Wikimedia Commons Photo/Manfred Werner - Tsui)

New York City's left-wing mayor Bill de Blasio has selected his left-wing friend Harry Belafonte to advise him on which New York City monuments are so hateful that they should be removed. The singer is one of 18 persons selected to be on the panel which will render an opinion.

Belafonte knows a thing or two about hatred: He is a supreme hate-monger himself, having spewed his vitriol at America, as well as many prominent Americans, for decades.

Virtually everyone concedes that Osama bin Laden was a genocidal maniac, one responsible for the deaths of legions of his own people, never mind thousands of Americans. But in the eyes of Belafonte, the mass murderer is no different from George W. Bush.

"To the extent that you can describe Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, a man who has been smitten by the worst aspects of civil villainy. I think one can say the same thing about Bush." ["Harry Belafonte's Five Feistiest Political Quotes," Washington Post, October 18, 2011]

Actually, Belafonte believes Bush was worse than bin Laden. He called the 43rd president "the greatest tyrant in the world [and] the greatest terrorist in the world." ["Blacks Repudiate Belafonte," National Leadership Network of Conservative African Americans, news release, January 13, 2006]

Belafonte also blamed America for creating bin Laden. "Bin Laden didn't come from the abstract. He came from somewhere, and if you look where, you'll see America's hand of villainy." ["Did Harry Belafonte Dishonor America?", The O'Reilly Factor, foxnews.com, December 1, 2005]

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez hated America, was a true tyrant, and impoverished his nation. But to Belafonte, he was a hero: "We respect you, we admire you." ["Blacks Repudiate Belafonte"]

Belafonte's praise for Chavez came on January 7, 2006, three days after the Venezuelan dictator was publicly condemned in the U.S. for accusing Jews of money grabbing worldwide. Two weeks earlier, on Christmas Eve, Chavez told the TV audience that "the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ have taken over all the wealth of the world." ["Blacks Repudiate Belafonte"]

Belafonte also blamed Jews for conspiring with the Nazis, saying, "Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich." ["Belafonte's Retraction of Remarks on Jews Causes New Flap," cnsnews.com, July 7, 2008]

The Koch brothers, Charles and David, are libertarian philanthropists, but because they are associated with conservative causes, Belafonte sees them as analogous to the Ku Klux Klan. He calls them "white supremacists" and "men of evil." ["Harry Belafonte's Greatest Hits," freebeacon.com, November 4, 2013]

Colin Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State, but to Belafonte, the four-star general was nothing more than a house slave. "There's an old saying in the days of slavery. There are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master. Colin Powell was permitted to come into the house of the master." ["Harry Belafonte's Greatest Hits"]

To Belafonte, black music = coon music. "There's certainly much more anger in rap than I've ever evidenced in coon songs. Coon songs seem more willing to placate." ["Harry Belafonte's Five Feistiest Political Quotes"]

Belafonte's support for a dictatorship at home was made clear when he implored President Obama to start one. Speaking of Republicans who were blocking Obama's programs, the singer said, "The only thing left for Barack Obama to do is to work like a third world dictator and just put all these guys in jail." ["Harry Belafonte, MSNBC Criticized over 'Jailing Republicans' Remarks," foxnews.com, December 14, 2012]

The evidence is unambiguous. Belafonte's hatred of America is matched only by his love for Communist regimes in the Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba. [See "A Guide to the Political Left" article on Belafonte available at discoverthenetworks.org]

This is the kind of person that Mayor de Blasio will be taking his cues from in assessing which monuments should be taken down.

If America acted the way Belafonte's beloved regimes did—the Soviet Union, East Germany, and Cuba—he would not be serving New York's executive—he would be executed. Lucky for him America was founded by men like Washington, Madison, and Jefferson, all of whom believed in inalienable rights, and not in the virtues of tyranny.

Bill Donohue is President and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organization. He was awarded his Ph.D. in sociology from New York University and is the author of seven books and many articles.

Liberal Law Professor: White House is Right About Comey Potentially Breaking the Law

Katie Pavlich

Earlier this week White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders strongly implied the Department of Justice should be looking at prosecuting former FBI Director James Comey on a number of fronts.

Q: Would the President encourage DOJ to prosecute Comey?

Sanders: That's not the President's role that's the job of the Department of Justice and something they should certainly look at.

Q: Is that something you would like to see?

Sanders: I'm not sure about that specifically but I think if there's ever a moment that where we feel someone's broken the law, particularly if they're the head of the FBI, I think that's something that certainly should be looked at.

It turns out, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a Democrat, is backing Sanders' assertions.

In a column for The Hill, Turley argues the press shouldn't be defending Comey or his actions. He focuses on Comey's memos about his meetings with President Trump, which he leaked to the press through a friend for personal benefit rather than to simply help the Special Counsel leading the Russia probe.

Comey disclosed key evidence that undermined, rather than assisted, investigators. The value of these memos to investigators was to have the evidence without the White House knowing about their existence. In later interviews, any conflicting statements could be charged as false statements under 18 U.S.C. 1001, the most successful grounds for prosecutors in past Washington scandals. Moreover, Comey damaged his own value as a witness. Comey was tasked with finding leakers in the administration but then immediately became a leaker himself when it served his purposes.

Comey’s defenders have scoffed that the notion that Comey even acted unprofessionally, let alone illegally. Comey insisted that he wrote the memos as a type of shield, but he then used them as a sword once he was fired. None of this means that Comey's actions warrant a criminal charge or that those actions exonerate others in the investigation, including President Trump. But at the end of the day, the White House is correct that Comey’s conduct can constitute violations of federal law and regulations.

Pressure on Comey has increased in recent weeks after it was revealed he made the decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton months before FBI agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witness in the case and long before a thorough investigation was complete.

Calls for Comey to testify in front of Congress to clarify previous congressional testimony, which is now highly suspect, are getting louder. Yesterday Republican Lindsey Graham threatened to issue a subpoena for the former FBI director if he chooses not comply with future Senate requests.

    

Paul Ryan Issues Nasty Message To President Trump

Frank Spear

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), has shown on multiple occasions that he has no regard for President Donald Trump. Most recently, he made a bold statement that is an insult not just to the president, but to every American who voted for him as well.

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and multiple other sources, informed Breitbartthat during a private dinner Ryan made a bold claim about Trump’s border wall. He stated that only “one member” is interested in building the wall, possibly referring to President Trump himself. In effective, Ryan was saying that the wall isn’t going to happen.

This statement occurred on the evening after the House passed two important immigration bills, namely Kate’s Law and a bill that enacted reforms on sanctuary cities.

Tancredo explained to Breitbart News exactly what happened. According to the former House representative, “Ryan told a group of Republicans he met with…that only one person wants a wall.”

As most people are aware, there are far more people than just President Trump who want this border wall to go up. “I know several people in Congress who want a wall, and I know that there are millions of Americans who want a wall,” Tancredo said.

The battle against illegal immigration has been ongoing since before President Trump made it into office. However, once Trump made it into office, one of his primary goals was to stop people from coming into this country without legal documentation.

Republicans had insisted it was their mission, at least before Trump was elected, to crack down on immigrants illegally entering the country. Now that President Trump is in office it seems that many have experienced a change of heart, including Ryan.

“The Chamber of Commerce doesn’t want a wall…the pressure is greater from the Chamber of Commerce than it is from the members,” Tancredo said. During his years working in the House, he had plenty of experience trying to secure the borders and knows how other people in these positions feel about the subject.

Another unnamed member of the GOP told Breitbart that essentially the comment was taken out of context. The House member reasoned that Ryan was trying to summarize the voice of the GOP caucus.

There is a problem with this argument, however. The members of the GOP have spoken firmly against illegal immigration and favoring secure borders.

The people and the president want the wall, but Paul Ryan — not so much. Is Ryan disloyal to his party?

There are only a handful of people in the GOP who have opposed these bills, and generally speaking, Ryan couldn’t have been talking about the varying opinions of the GOP. The way that it was explained, and the fact that the person who made the statement wanted to remain hidden, makes it sound more like an excuse.

Simply put, President Trump and Congress are supposed to advance and codify the will of the people. The people made it very clear during the rallies, primaries, and through their voting decisions that enforcement of our border laws and immigration policies is what they want.

Instead of honoring the American people, politicians like Ryan are taking the low road and supporting their donors and the Democrats. The complete disregard has not gone unnoticed and the longer they put off funding the wall, the more people are going to clamor, and perhaps rightfully so.

Trump's Friday morning Tweet on Chain Migration attempts to clarify position on DACA

Every political junkie in the country was trying to decode Pres. Trump's cryptic Tweet this morning on chain migration.

CHAIN MIGRATION cannot be allowed to be part of any legislation on Immigration!

-- Pres. Trump

Given the President's endorsement of Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue's RAISE Act (which would end chain migration), we believe Trump's Tweet can only mean one thing -- any immigration bill passed by Congress should end chain migration.

In his Tweet response to Trump, Roy added another condition with a link to his recent op-ed published by The Hill...

True. Any immigration legislation must end Chain Migration...and mandate E-Verify.
-- NumbersUSA President Roy Beck

Trump's Tweet came after news broke on Wednesday night that he had struck a deal with Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer on DACA. The reports said that Trump had agreed to pair a DACA amnesty with border security, triggering a firestorm of anger and frustration from his base. (Read our statement in response to the reports here.) After all, Trump's anti-amnesty pledge was repeated on the campaign trail almost as often as his calls for a "wall" along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The once Trump-friendly Brietbart.com dubbed Trump as "Amnesty Don" followed by reports of his supporters burning "Make America Great Again" hats after hearing news of the alleged deal.

The White House insisted that there was no deal, but acknowledged that Trump, Pelosi, and Schumer did discuss DACA and border security.

After his Tweet this morning, reporters pressed White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders to explain what exactly the Tweet meant. Sanders said that the White House would be announcing its immigration principles in 7-10 days and mentioned the President's support for the RAISE Act.

WHAT IT ALL MEANS

The only ones who know if anything was agreed to regarding a DACA amnesty during the meeting are the people who were in the room on Wednesday night, and each side is fighting for leverage over the other on the issue. Whether Trump agreed to a DACA amnesty-border security trade is unknown, but it's become clear over the last 24 hours that if a deal was made, he's backed off.

Regardless, the next few weeks will be telling. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy have assembled an immigration working group along with Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte to draft possible legislation.

Meanwhile, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows is saying that the White House has reached out to his caucus to also propose legislation.

The only thing we know for sure is that NumbersUSA activists should prepare for major action on possible immigration legislation in Congress this fall. No one knows what that legislation might look like, but if Trump gets his way according to his Tweet and today's press briefing, the RAISE Act could be part of it. And we'll need all of our activists ready to pressure Congress to make sensible changes to our legal immigration system that serve the national interest.

CHRIS CHMIELENSKI

Pro-life groups in Massachusetts demand that Archbishop of Boston stop publicly betraying pro-life principles.

 

Cardinal O'Malley honors pro-abortion Secretary of State John Kerry with an honorary degree at Boston College in 2014.

Pro-life leaders in Massachusetts have decided they can’t stay silent any longer.

A coalition of outraged Catholic pro-life organizations along with major Catholic and non-Catholic activists has issued a public statement calling upon Cardinal Sean O’Malley, the Archbishop of Boston, and the other Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, to stop their blatant public betrayals of the pro-life movement.  

The statement cites nineteen blatant violations of official Catholic pro-life policy in the last three years, involving Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts.

The statement was written by a committee led by Bill Cotter, president of Boston’s Operation Rescue, and C.J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, along with pro-life activists Brendan O’Connell, Robert Joyce, Brian Camenker of MassResistance, and others. It was released to the public on Wednesday, Sept. 13. The online version for the public to sign was posted soon after.

This may be the first time in the United States that lay Catholics (and pro-life allies) have publicly confronted the Bishops for their actions that clearly contradict official Catholic teaching and policy. But serious Catholics have been deeply troubled and distraught over this for years.

Official Catholic policy is very clear: In its 2004 document Catholics in Political Life, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops specifically prohibited Catholic institutions from giving awards, honors, or platforms to political figures who support legal abortion.

But they seem to do this all the time.

Among the incidences cited in the statement:

• Earlier this year Cardinal O'Malley attended the “Profiles in Courage” Award ceremony at the Kennedy Library honoring former President Barack Obama, whose administration was sued by the Little Sisters of the Poor over the Obamacare contraceptive mandate.
• In 2014 the Missionary Society of St James – whose president is Cardinal O'Malley – presented an Award to Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, a longtime proponent of legal abortion. Walsh was the recipient of the 2016 Men of Choice Award from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. He went on to defend the public funding of Planned Parenthood. He named a square in Boston after abortionist Kenneth Edelin. And Mayor Walsh recently called for Boston to become a sanctuary city for abortions, should Roe v. Wade be overturned.
• Also in, 2014, Cardinal O’Malley participated in a ceremony in Boston College (a Catholic university) conferred an honorary degree on U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry, who was also the commencement speaker. Kerry had a 100% pro-abortion record as a U.S. Senator. In 2004, while running for president, Kerry attacked Pope John Paul II, accusing the Pontiff of “an inappropriate crossing of the line” for urging Catholics in public life to defend traditional marriage. O’Malley—who was appointed by John Paul II—gave the benediction, was photographed smiling and shaking hands with Kerry, and then posed for another photograph with him.
• On September 1, 2017, Cardinal O’Malley co-authored an article in the Boston Globe on immigration with the notorious Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. Healey has received a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and also $1.6 million in campaign support from them. She has vowed to shut down pro-life pregnancy counseling centers. Healey is also an aggressive lesbian activist. Earlier this year, her office issued a statement that Massachusetts churches could be prosecuted for not allowing “transgender” bathrooms.

Read the entire list of outrages.

Cardinal O'Malley and Barack O'Bama (AP Photo)

The final straw: The Cardinal’s signature ban

This year, a Catholic pro-life group announced a state-wide signature effort for an initiative petition for a Constitutional Amendment to ban tax-funded abortions in Massachusetts. Almost immediately after that announcement, Cardinal O’Malley imposed a ban on signature gathering on all Church properties. They claimed that many parishioners opposed the collection of signatures at Catholic churches, which was traditionally a mainstay for “culture war” statewide efforts. But pro-life and pro-marriage people say it was always very popular.

This inexplicable act was the final straw, in the minds of many faithful Catholics, that led to the creation of this public statement.

A Catholic-run group in Massachusetts is gathering signatures for a state Constitutional Amendment to stop taxpayer funding of abortion. But the Cardinal has banned them from getting signatures on Church property!

“Repeated and ongoing scandals and betrayals”

The statement does not mince words. It characterizes the Bishops' behavior as a series of "repeated, ongoing and worsening scandals and betrayals, which demoralize faithful Catholics, marginalize the pro-life community, and send a message of confusion and contradiction to secular society."

Boston Operation Rescue President Bill Cotter said it best in a statement to the press:

All we are asking of our prelates is that they uphold their own professed principles and abide by their own stated policies. The disconnect in the Catholic hierarchy between rhetoric and reality on the issue of abortion must come to an end.

The bishops expose themselves to the reproach of hypocrisy when they urge Catholics to support the right to life, but then give awards and platforms to public officials who work to keep abortion legal, unrestricted and publicly funded.

No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when Catholic bishops and cardinals honor and extol, at public events, even in their own institutions, political figures who are opponents of the right to life, and allies of Planned Parenthood. The bishops must stop these betrayals.

A shock: Many Mass. pro-life groups and activists decline to sign

Probably the biggest shock to all of us was the number of staunch pro-life organizations and individual activists – all of whom are Catholic – who have declined to sign the statement.

This is what, sadly, reveals the corruption, cowardliness, and faithlessness in today’s pro-life movement.

In every case the individuals we spoke with did not have a religious problem with signing it, and said they “personally” agreed with the statement. The reasons were basically political and financial. Some told us it was because the Cardinal occasionally shows up at their events, and they didn’t want to antagonize him or the Archdiocese.  Others said that publicly signing the statement might hurt their fundraising. One or two signature gatherers for the referendum said that if they didn’t antagonize the Cardinal, maybe their pastors might encourage their parishioners to sign their sheets. (Not likely, actually).

It’s all completely shameful. Many of these same activists excoriate Catholic politicians for being “personally” pro-life but voting for anti-life bills because it’s politically expedient.

But positive reaction by conservative Catholic media

On the other hand, the reaction to the statement by the conservative Catholic media (i.e., not affiliated with the Bishops) has been overwhelmingly positive. It was initially promoted on Christian News Wire. Since then, members of the coalition have spoken personally with several conservative media figures. There will likely be a lot of positive press on this around the country (though not in the mainstream media, of course). This is exciting news, we were told. As of this writing, The Remnant, and ChurchMilitantTV, and about a dozen prominent blogs have done articles, and LifeSiteNews, Catholic World News and many others have articles being prepared.

A fight worth fighting everywhere

This fight is not new, and it’s certainly not confined to the United States – or the Catholic Church. For years, MassResistance activists in the United Kingdom have been part of an effort there to stop the Church of England’s horrible descent into apostasy. They have relentlessly confronted church leaders both publicly and privately. In addition, earlier this summer when the Church announced it would be including “transgenderism” in its liturgy, Texas-MassResistance leader Dr. Robert Oscar Lopez personally travelled to the UK at the invitation of UK activists and addressed the national Anglican General Synod on July 8.

Don’t be left behind. Every pro-life person of good will should stand with this coalition and send this message!

G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier

Thus Article

That's an article This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/09/httpift_16.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: