Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Notre Dame: Obama Commencement Speech - Bishop Boycotts

by Maggie Thornton

President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver the commencement speech for the University of Notre Dame's 2009 graduation class. Notre Dame has not only invited President Obama to speak at the ceremony, they will bestow upon him an honorary doctor of laws degree. Bishop John D'Arcy, whose Diocese includes the University of Notre Dame, says he will boycott the ceremony.

Bishop John D'Arcy

Bishop D'Arcy is known for his efforts to protect parishioners from abusive priests. He had very harsh words for the University's choice of speakers. Speaking of Obama's decision to federally fund embryonic stem cell research, D'Arcy said the President:
...has now placed in public policy ... his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life sacred.

While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life...

A White House spokesperson replied, saying that the President welcomes the "spirit of debate and healthy disagreement on important issues.
National Review Online gathered comments from educational experts and Catholicism. George Weigel, an American Catholic author, founder of The James Madison Foundation and a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, was especially poignant:
Notre Dame’s decision to make President Obama its 2009 commencement speaker is a very bad thing. It’s bad for Notre Dame, bad for Catholic moral witness in America, and bad for the bishops who are trying to mount a defense against the Obama administration’s assault on the conscience rights of Catholic health-care professionals.

The invitation to deliver a commencement address, especially when coupled with the award of an honorary degree, is not a neutral act. It’s an act by which a Catholic institution of higher learning says, “This is a life worth emulating according to our understanding of the true, the good, and the beautiful.” It is frankly beyond my imagining how Notre Dame can say that of a president who has put the United States back into the business of funding abortion abroad; a president who made a mockery of the very idea of moral argument in his speech announcing federal funding for embryo-destructive stem cell research; a president whose administration and its congressional allies are snatching tuition vouchers out of the hands of desperately poor Washington, D.C., children who just as desperately want to attend Catholic schools.
Visit the National Review Online article. It offers some fine thinking on the matter. It is well-worth reading whether or not you are Catholic.

The Cardinal Newman Society has sponsored an online petition to encourage the University to rescind the invitation. The petition has 115,123 signers. Over 11,000 have signed since I first viewed the petition last evening. You can sign the petition at

It is interesting to note that the Catholic vote for Obama was the largest faith vote among the "religions," with 54 percent of Catholics voting for Obama. The accompanying article with the chart below from The Pew Forum says that "Obama performed particularly well among Latino Catholics," - 67 percent voted for Obama.

The President's views on the sanctity of life were widely known during the campaign. As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted to kill a bill that would prevent killing a baby born alive. Nurse Jill Stanek was all over television and radio testifying to what Obama's views on infanticide really meant, and her personal experience with the issue. Really, it cannot get worse than that - but he won anyway. During the campaign, he told us that he would immediately recind a Bush executive order preventing taxpayer money being used overseas for funding abortions - and if you didn't believe him then, it was one of his first acts as President.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

G.I.V.E for cramming ideology down the throats of young “volunteers”

Cross-posted from Faultline USA

P.S.A. from Wake up America Movement

Sign Petition to the Senate NOW! 

G.I.V.E. Act opens the door to Total Take-Over!

The “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act” is Now before the Senate


or witness the first phase of Nazi history repeating itself here in U.S.

Passed by the House of Representatives in a 321 to 105 vote yesterday, this G.I.V.E. Act should come as no surprise - within our current economic crisis and near bankrupt status being used - once again - by the Obama administration  as an excuse for the civilian-military force he spoke of during his campaign. At a start-up cost of $6 Billion dollars, what makes this quantum leap of youth re-education so critically urgent right now? The answer lies in the pages of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which states:"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. “The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."  . . .


We need to let Washington know, loud and clear, that when JFK said “Ask what you can do for your country” he never said nor implied that such service should be supervised nor mandated -- BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

Here are direct quotes which hint at the scope of HR1388 aka G.I.V.E Act:

A “National Civilian Community Corps" shall be formed under the auspices of a nebulous “Commission” with “Powers of Members and Agents... if authorized by the Commission, (to) take any action which the Commission is authorized to” ... “improving the health, well-being, and economic opportunities of the neediest individuals in the Nation.” How dare the government legislate Volunteerism? The bill refers to:

Misc. section, #6104: (6) “ Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds” (by) (C) involv(ing) an increasing percentage of students in secondary school and out-of-school youth in the community in school-based or community based service-learning activities each year, with the goal of involving all students in secondary schools served by the local educational agency and involving an increasing percentage of the out-of-school youth in service learning activities. It goes on to state: “Each program funded under this part shall be carried out over a period of three years, including one planning year and two additional grant years, with a 1-year extension possible, if the program meets performance measures developed in accordance with section 179(a) and any other criteria determined by the Corporation (AmericaCorps)   . . with “Requirements” as follows: `It is the sense of Congress that the number of participants in the programs . . .  should grow to reach 250,000 participants by 2014” in service programs that combine the best practices of civilian service with the best aspects of military service, including leadership and team building, to meet national and community needs” It further states that the Director determines appropriate "Uniforms” with references to “camps” revised to “campuses.” There are also references to programs at even the elementary school level in SEC. 1201, though the specific contents and supervision of these programs remain unspoken. . .


According to FOX News, Critics oppose G.I.V.E for cramming ideology down the throats of young “volunteers” ...”many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a "Congressional Commission on Civic Service." Rep. Joe Wilson was one of three Republicans to oppose the legislation in committee. Wilson questioned “the utility of the cash-strapped federal government making such huge investments in what he says should be community-inspired projects and programs.” He also questioned "whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation." concerned that the increased funding will be used to promote one ideology over another. 

Read more here:

Forward this link to every sane American you know. Then make your voice heard in Washington. Let them know: If you pass G.I.V.E We the People won’t TAKE this abuse of power anymore!

Sign Petition to the Senate NOW!

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Durban II: More U.N. Efforts to Squelch Free Speech?

by Barbara Sowell

On Dec. 18, 2008 the U.N General Assembly passed a non binding resolution that condemned "defamation of religion." Western critics have said that this resolution will be used to limit freedom of speech.

Last month the Obama administration said that the United States will boycott Durban II, the upcoming U.N. conference of racism, “unless its final document is changed to drop all references to Israel and the defamation of religion.”

A growing number of nations fear that Durban II may be the launch pad for an all out final assault on freedom of speech. A binding anti-blasphemy resolution on member UN nations would make it a crime to criticize Islam.

Canada, United States, Italy, other European states, and Israel are now boycotting the United Nations racism summit, the Durban Review Conference, or what is dubbed “Durban II,” which is due to take place in Geneva from April 20-24.

In Nov 2008, Islamic countries won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure. According to a Nov 2008 CanWest article, this resolution, and similar resolutions, are being accumulated for a more sinister goal – to provide international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws. The goal of the Organization of Islamic Conference is to create a binding resolution on member nations to severely limit free speech. This goal might be accomplished at the Durbin II conference.

Passage of the resolution is part of a 10-year action plan the 57-state Organization of Islamic Conference launched in 2005 to ensure “renaissance” of the “Muslim Ummah” or community.

While the current resolution is non-binding, Pakistan’s Ambassador Masood Khan reminded the UN’s Human Rights Council this year that the OIC ultimately seeks a “new instrument or convention” on the issue. Such a measure would impose its terms on signatory states.

The resolution passed in Nov 2008 links religious defamation to incitement to violence, which would severely limit a broad range of peaceful speech and expression.
The CanWest article continues:

But Western democracies argue that a religion can’t enjoy protection from criticism because that would require a judicial ruling that its teachings are the “truth.”

“Defamation carries a particular legal meaning and application in domestic systems that makes the term wholly unsuitable in the context of religions,” says the U.S. government in a response on the issue to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

“A defamatory statement . . . is more than just an offensive one. It is also a statement that is false.”

The article goes on to explain the legal difficulty of even defining the term “defamation,” and that belief cannot be equated with a legal definition of truth. Additionally, most Western countries do not grant rights to ideas. There is a distinction between “granting an “idea” rights - and defending the right of people not to be discriminated against.”

Canada says governments have abused laws against defamation or contempt of religions to “prosecute and imprison journalists, bloggers, academics students and peaceful political dissidents.”

There’s also consensus among opponents of the UN measure that people most likely to be targeted by anti-blasphemy laws are Muslims in Muslim countries.

According to Nat Hentoff's op-ed column in Feb 2, 2009 in the Washington Times only Islam and Muslims are covered by the current anti-defamation resolution.

Only Islam and Muslims are specifically named in this resolution against religious defamation, sponsored by Uganda on behalf of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, and cosponsored by Belarus and Venezuela. Opponents included the United States, a majority of European countries, Japan and India. . .

The article quotes Floyd Abrams, “the nation's leading protector of the First Amendment,” as stating "that laws based on the concept of 'defamation of religion' actually help to create a climate of violence."

"Violators of these laws, as applied in most Muslim countries, are subject to the death penalty," Abrams continued. He cited from the study a 22-year-old Hindu in Pakistan who "was beaten to death by co-workers at a factory for allegedly committing the crime of blasphemy, which is a crime punishable by death in the country." The three workers were "charged not with murder but with 'failure to inform the police that blasphemy was under way.' " . . .

Another of America's leading First Amendment lawyers, Marc Stern, co-executive director of the American Jewish Congress, makes a crucial point: If this approach to "defamation of religion" were to become a crime under international law (under the impetus of the U.N. resolution), "nations would be able to seek extradition and trial abroad of persons who make statements critical or offensive to one or all faiths anywhere in the world."

According to the Jewish Tribune, the International March of the Living praised the United States for announcing that it would not attend the conference. The organization is urging a boycott of the Durbin II conference in Geneva.

“This is a compelling moral position by the US leadership, displaying that hatred and intolerance have no place in international discourse,” said Dr. Shmuel Rosenman, chairman of the International March of the Living. . .”

As reported by (AFP) yesterday, Australia is threatening to boycott Durban II, because it threatens to turn into an anti-Jewish anti-Semitic rant. According to Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, Australia is leery of joining Durban II for fear it will be a repeat of the inaugural UN racism summit, held in the South African city of Durban in September 2001.

People should please understand this: if we come to the conclusion that the text being prepared for the Durban review number two conference sets us up for a re-run of an anti-Jewish anti-Semitic harangue, as the first conference was, then Australia will not take part," Smith told reporters. reports that Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel says that the upcoming Durban II conference on racism will hurt the United Nations.

Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel on Thursday said the passing of resolutions attacking Israel at the upcoming "Durban II" conference on racism would only harm the summit's host, the United Nations.

"The anti-Israeli resolutions to be expected at Durban II will harm the UN, not Israel," Weisel told Haaretz. He was referring to reports that draft resolutions for the summit brand Israel as an occupying state that carries out racist policies.

According to Eye on The UN, this is what the Durbin II platform represents:

• Undermining the West and democracy
• Promoting anti-semitism
• Demonizing Israel as racist
• Foiling efforts to combat radical Islamic terrorism
• Manufacturing Islamophobia everywhere
• Fomenting religious extremism
• Curbing free expression

Durban II documents and articles can be found at Eye on the UN

A Lou Dobbs interview with Christopher Hitchens discusses the U.N. anti-blasphemy resolution. If it were binding on member UN nations, it would call on governments to pass their own laws to make it a crime to criticize Islam.

JBlog Me

Originally Published at Digital Journal