The choice is stark: Democracy or serfdom

Published in Cumberland Times-News Friday, August 21, 2012.

"Let’s face it: The White experience in America – that of the Mayflower Descendants, the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution, descendants of European farmers who settled the frontier and Jewish and Christian immigrants who filled the cities and fueled the Industrial Revolution -- is fundamentally different from that of the African-American, or modern-day Latino or Asian immigrant."

Who would destroy our country? Why?

We who cherish America as the grand experiment in democracy, with lofty ideals to which others aspire, hold our heads in confoundedness: Why do our own brethren set out to destroy this country?

What is their thinking? Can we halt their rapid dismantling of America’s foundation?

Do these people have no connection to our ancestors’ struggles?  Is there no one in their families who witnessed the Pilgrims’ courageous voyage to seek religious freedom; their crash landing at Clark’s Island in winter 1620; their Mayflower Compact, necessary for survival; their thanksgiving to God for his protection and beneficence?

Can they claim no ancestors among the colonists who objected to tyrannical rule, who heroically proclaimed a Declaration of Independence, and then took up arms to fight, and win against all odds, in a risky Revolutionary War?

Did no one in their families side with the Feds or Rebs in their passionate disagreements over slavery and states’ rights that tore the country apart before making us one, joined then in reconstruction and resurrection?

 Did none of their fathers or grandfathers, sons or daughters, serve our country in Europe, Korea, Vietnam, or any of the various recent arenas, to fight against Marxist, Communist and Islamist totalitarianism and tyrannical oppression?

Were none of their ancestors among the hopeful immigrants who came here in centuries past to find freedom and opportunity, and to build a community, an identity, a country?

Either they must have no connection, or no knowledge of it; or they disdain ours.

Let’s face it: The White experience in America – that of the Mayflower Descendants, the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution, descendants of European farmers who settled the frontier and Jewish and Christian immigrants who filled the cities and fueled the Industrial Revolution -- is fundamentally different from that of the African-American, or modern-day Latino or Asian immigrant.

While we reflect on a bold and inspired heritage steeped in independence and self-reliance, they see their own ancestors having suffered inexorable pain and brutal injustices. Our America has been a land of parallel universes.

Unhealed wounds of slavery and yet-vivid images of Jim Crow fuel disillusionment with our founders’ Judeo-Christian ideals for law and justice; and progressive thinkers disagree with beliefs that our blessings come from God and not from government.

Marxist and neo-communist ideas of “social justice” and “fair share” have taken center stage at the White House and gained momentum among the masses, especially “alienated youths,” who American Thinker columnist James Lewis says (Oct. 9, 2007)  “are always the easiest targets for any totalitarian creed.”

 “The Neocommies,” Lewis writes, “are part more of a movement than a conspiracy.”

He goes on, “Democrats (have become) more totalitarian in spirit and practice (since)  the first wave of the New Left started its takeover of the Party in the 1970s and 80s.” These Democrats, Lewis says, “will tell you they are patriotic Americans, which is very true, if you adopt their belief that America must be subjected to a Leftist regime for its own good. ...

“The (ideological) goal,” says Lewis, “is to create Paradise on Earth by overthrowing democratic capitalism. The real goal is to enable the rise of a new ruling class with huge power over ordinary people.”

The choice in November is stark: Democracy, with its individual freedoms and prosperity, or socialism, serfdom and poverty.

Americans are at a juncture. We can revere our God-fearing ancestors and continue their unique, hard-won Judeo-Christian system of law and justice that has served exceptionally well for almost 240 years. Or we can discard all that, and embrace Marxist rule.

The majority will decide.

Debate goes beyond socialism to liberty

Published in Cumberland Time-News Thursday, June 14, 2012.

"Our founders established for us, as Jesus taught, that no ruler, nor president, has supreme authority to coerce God-fearing citizens to obey the state, and morally perish."

While folks debate Barack Obama’s socialist leanings regarding, for instance, his manipulating from the White House such industries as finance, health and energy, one thing is certain: He shared Marxist ideologies with Jeremiah Wright, a fervent liberation theologian, and his beliefs clash head-on with the Catholic Church.

Liberation theology twists Christianity to devalue Jesus’ divine nature and his salvific mission and, instead, emphasize his human persona in order to glorify and justify social redemption.

An errant offshoot of Catholicism, liberation theology espouses that Jesus promotes liberation from economic and political injustices imposed on the downtrodden by their oppressors, rather than urging personal redemption from sins of immorality.

Romans and Jews made the same mistake in Jesus’ day. Fear of Jesus’ influence as a revolutionary led to his death, though he claimed no intent to be an earthly king and told Pilate (John 18:36), “My kingdom is not of this world.”

Jesus taught, rather, that each of us, made in the image of God, is inherently dignified and uniquely responsible for our own conduct in the material world -- and our own fate in eternity.

Liberation theology seems to drive President Obama in his cries about the rich “paying their fair share” and his desire to “spread the wealth around.” It could be the force behind his trumped-up class warfare and claims of a war on women.

Our deliverer-president, in fact, in his Obamacare mandate, is waging war on the Catholic Church, and on religion in general; it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Jesus’ command that we should give to the state what is the state’s, and to God what is God’s (Mark12:17).

Our founders established for us, as Jesus taught, that no ruler, nor president, has supreme authority to coerce God-fearing citizens to obey the state, and morally perish.

 Speaking of the church’s response to the Department of Health and Human Services’ order to provide employees insurance coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops, said on May 21 that church leaders have no choice now but to sue.

“We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress -- and will keep at it -- but there’s still no fix,” many media quote Dolan. “Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now.”

The Archdiocese of New York is one of 43 plaintiffs -- Catholic dioceses, schools, hospitals, social service agencies and other institutions, Catholic News Agency clarifies -- who filed suit in 12 federal district courts across the country.

CNA reports that “states, colleges, private employers and organizations throughout the U.S.” previously filed at least 11 lawsuits against the mandate.

If the Supreme Court decides this month to strike the mandate, then the lawsuits could be moot. In the meantime, they illustrate “a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty,” Dolan observes – a cause that spawned our nation’s founding and should unify all Americans.

How ironic that Father John Jenkins -- Notre Dame president who infamously awarded President Obama an honorary degree, despite opposition from bishops and faithful across the country who object to Obama’s advancement of abortion -- proclaims in the May 21 Washington Post, “This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives.”

Indeed, the debate goes to the heart of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness in America.

President presents tough ethics issue

Published in Cumberland Times-News Thursday, April 5, 2012.

"The direction of our secular society today, especially under President Obama’s federally mandated complicity, seems to be to prepare our youths for unfettered, no-fault sex, and then communally to prevent or dispose of the consequences -- unwanted pregnancies."

Reading Charles Haynes’ column about the Character Education Partnership (March 31 Times-News), I thought, “How wonderful,” that Mr. Sandy McDonnell saw and addressed the need; how sad, too, though, that secular scholars should be expected (and entrusted) to teach ethics and virtues – training traditionally instilled in faith-filled homes and communities in our not-so-long-ago God-fearing nation.

Are public school teachers qualified, and whose standards would they follow, to consider such concepts as “conscience” and “discernment,” basic to ethics and virtues, and often confused today with “license” and “self-fulfillment?”

Not self-serving, discernment enables us to judge wisely what is true and just, particularly in complicated situations. Not self-gratifying, conscience empowers us to follow God’s will, rather than our own, or that of others. Intricately intertwined, conscience builds discernment, while discernment leads to conscionable actions.

In today’s muddled secular society, would public school teachers embrace truth, or desire to seek it, with enough expertise to teach it? Likely, some -- in keeping with current progressive trends -- might thumb their noses at truth, mock it, and teach narcissism, skepticism and antagonism, instead.

For example: In March 2008, then-Senator Obama, speaking of contraceptives, said of the future for his six- and nine-year-old daughters, “if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” Then last month, in the context of his administration’s assault on religious liberty and conscience rights, President Obama referred to his two young daughters to imply they inspire him in his desire to mandate free contraceptives and abortifacients.

What confounding testimony for our nation’s youths – to educate them to think like victims that consequences of mistakes are punishments, rather than responsibilities, and then to provide “safety” for their sexual encounters at the expense of everyone else in the country, against the consciences and better judgments of most.

Public schools used to integrate domestic skills courses into curricula, to prepare young men and women for home and family life. Most youths came to school already trained in conscience and discernment, and practical matters, by their parents, pastors and neighbors; there was no need to teach ethics or virtues – or sex.

The direction of our secular society today, especially under President Obama’s federally mandated complicity, seems to be to prepare our youths for unfettered, no-fault sex, and then communally to prevent or dispose of the consequences -- unwanted pregnancies.

Ethical? Virtuous? No.

Corrupt? Extortionist? Perhaps some students in one of the CEP’s “schools of character” could take on this discussion as an ethics issue.

Much depends on Archbishop Dolan

Published in the Cumberland Times-News Thursday, Feb. 16, 2012.

"The modern problem dates to the 1960s’ spawning of Catholic liberation theology, an errant Marxist view of social justice, and Pope Paul VI’s crackdown on the 'follow your conscience' movement (regarding birth control), in his 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae."

My 92-year-old mother asked me, “What is the bottom line in the fracas with the church?”

I explained: To comply with the next ObamaCare mandate, all Catholic entities must buy employee health insurance that provides contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization.  

This is a direct assault on Catholicism, religious freedom and conscience rights. It forces the church to choose -- obey God, or bow to Obama.

The church may either implement the mandate and violate its essence; or refuse to comply, and go bankrupt paying whopping fines; or shutter all its hospitals, universities, schools, agencies – go out of existence; or go underground, as it has had to do in other countries, at other times, under similar circumstances.

The kick is, the mastermind behind the mandate is Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, who, we might say, was empowered to define its parameters with great assistance from Sister Carol Keehan.

President of the Catholic Health Association, Keehan stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Obama and his allies, to shove ObamaCare down the nation’s collective throat. Now, applauding the president’s recent backpedaling -- which simply makes us all complicit, rather than front-line offenders – Keehan again joins forces to put all Catholics in the distasteful position of having ObamaCare thrust up unsavory parts of our collective anatomy.

Jonathan Last writes in the Feb. 7 Weekly Standard: “most Catholics took the president at his word when he met with Archbishop Timothy Dolan last fall and assured him” the policy was no threat.

“That was their mistake,” Last concludes.

Now Dolan pushes back. But against powerful and deceitful progressives, will he have the doggedness to sustain the fight? Furthermore, can he wield sufficient influence among the masses of Catholic women – who regularly choose contraceptives or sterilization over abstinence or natural family planning, and often opt to abort rather than adopt -- and their commiserating men, to sway public sentiment effectively?

Next, segue to Maryland, where Gov. Martin O’Malley, his District Court judge wife Katie O’Malley, and Del. Heather Mizeur – all Catholics – lead the charge to ram same-sex marriage through our legislature.

Mizeur dismisses the bishops, saying they can preach what they want. She decides how to be a “practicing Catholic;” her faith gives her license to “follow her conscience” -- down the aisle with her female lover.

Katie O’Malley calls House delegates who obey God, rather than bow to her husband, “cowards;” and she agrees with Mizeur and the governor that religion has no place in the public square.

Those who believe that government is not at war with religious institutions and, indeed, every individual of faith, kid themselves.

And leading the charge are progressive Catholics who would destroy civil society and the church, and remake them in their own image -- with Obama all too happy to help.

The modern problem dates to the 1960s’ spawning of Catholic liberation theology, an errant Marxist view of social justice, and Pope Paul VI’s crackdown on the “follow your conscience” movement (regarding birth control), in his 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae.

Failing to effect change within the church during Vatican II, progressives advanced their agenda socially and politically, and waited for the next viable opportunity to wrest moral authority from the hierarchy.

Michael Collins of The Annapolis Capital (Feb. 7) calls for the Maryland judiciary to discipline Katie O’Malley, for her “partisan politics” that reveal “animus toward religion in the public square.”

I suggest the church disown both O’Malleys – and all their fellow anti-Catholics – until they might repent and reform.

Much depends on Cardinal-designate Dolan. He is a big man with a booming voice and a hearty laugh. We’ll see what kind of bite he has.

Past Catholic Christmases make rich memories

Published in Cumbelrand Times-News Sunday, December 25, 2011

"The decorations, the music, the crèche, the shoulder-to-shoulder, better-get-there-early, standing-room-only crowd, the unparalleled beauty of Christ’s arrival and His sacrifice – along with anticipating what came after – made this night magical, indeed."

Being part of my mom’s large Catholic family, and spending my first seven grades in Catholic school, I recall vibrantly holy and wholesome past Christmases.

Before Christmas Mass became a children’s Mass (reminiscent of a school pageant), it was reverent, beautiful, solemn, yet celebratory -- the essence, in my memory, of the Catholic celebration of Christ’s birth and ultimate sacrifice.

For the month prior, we prepared in school for the miraculous coming of our infant savior. Besides studying Bible stories and the Baltimore Catechism, and unfolding our Advent calendars, we incorporated the mystery and wonder of Christ’s coming into literary and art projects and mini-dramas.

As Christmas day approached, we spent more time in church for choir practice. Sister Charlotte, the organist, arranged prayers to fit Christmas hymns, which we students carefully and joyfully then sang from our pews in the choir loft at midnight Mass.

Preparations at home began weeks in advance, too. Mom usually made me a new dress; perhaps I’d get a new coat. We’d bake sand tarts and pineapple filled cookies, Santa-shaped sugar-type, and Mom’s caramel-topped applesauce cakes – gifts for the teachers!

My siblings and I looked forward to finding a few surprises the next morning, as we decorated the tree on Christmas Eve and placed the crèche beneath it. Situating the tree in front of the double windows required rearranging living room furniture, adding to the sense of accommodating the Christ child in our home.

Midnight Mass, though, brought the denouement. The decorations, the music, the crèche, the shoulder-to-shoulder, better-get-there-early, standing-room-only crowd, the unparalleled beauty of Christ’s arrival and His sacrifice – along with anticipating what came after – made this night magical, indeed.

The longer-than-usual service ended after 1 a.m. Then everyone in my mother’s family – who traveled from various states, and filled a significant portion of the church pews – gathered once again at her parents’ home for breakfast.

We scrambled dozens of eggs and fried pounds of puddin’ to feed upwards of probably 60, some years. We know the tradition started as early as 1963, because we have group photos that show my right arm in a cast: I broke it on the playground in second grade.

After breakfast, around 4 a.m., we all gathered in my grandparents’ spacious living room. We cousins gave each other our jingle gifts and distributed those from the pile under the tree. Everyone got something from Grandma and Grandpap, and their seven daughters exchanged gifts. The revelry continued until sunup.

Returning home on Christmas day, we opened the gifts under our own tree: Usually a book (most memorably, The Yearling), a board game (Scrabble), clothes (a nightgown and underwear), perhaps a doll (Shirley Temple), or candy (Life Savers book). Then we’d read, play, or sleep.

Twenty-five years or so have passed since our last Christmas gathering at Grandma’s house, but Mom’s sister Frances keeps a holiday tradition going. This year, we'll gather after the New Year at her farmhouse in Salisbury, Pa.

Sadly, most in the younger generations don’t practice the faith, and those who do might need to travel a distance to experience a traditional, beautiful and reverent Catholic Christmas Mass. Staged to accommodate children -- or to appeal to the child within – most Christmas Masses today emote and entertain, rather than inspire and elevate.

At this time of year, I am grateful to my parents (my father converted from the Episcopal Church), Mom’s parents and their parents, and the priests and nuns of my youth, for making my Catholic upbringing real, and my Christmas memories rich.