Monthly Archives: January 2010

Kudos to Sarah Palin For Defending the Tebow Ad

1-30-10 Posted by admin in Abortion, Blog, Featured Articles, Gallery, Recent Articles 0 Comments

By Brenda Steele

Well, kudos to Sarah Palin for getting in on the debate surrounding the pro-life ad to be aired during Super Bowl XLIV! The 30 second ad sponsored by Focus on the Family features Pam Tebow, mother of  the University of Florida’s senior quarterback, Tim Tebow, who was the only sophomore to ever win the Heisman trophy.

Pam Tebow, mother of five and wife to Bob Tebow, a missionary and evangelist, will be featured in the ad, along with her youngest son, Tim, witnessing to protecting innocent life. She was advised, while on mission in the Phillipines with her family, to abort the baby she was then carrying. Pam was taking medication for amoebic dysentary which doctors feared would cause fetal deformity to her unborn child. She refused, and we know the rest of the story.

Tim Tebow, the child who would have been aborted had his mother taken the advice of her doctors, is a happy, healthy, bright, college football superstar who shares his family’s faith in the Lord and in the right to life for all.

Sarah Palin, also mother of five, has herself known anxiety during pregnancy. She was told when four months pregnant with her youngest son, Trig, that he would be born with Down Syndrome. Sarah Palin, too, chose not to abort the baby she was carrying. Her husband is quoted as saying when told of their unborn child’s special needs, “We shouldn’t be asking, ‘Why us?’ We should be saying, ‘Well, why not us.’”

That Sarah Palin is advocating for CBS to “Do the right thing – don’t cave – have the backbone to run the ad” is both a testament to her own belief in the right of the preborn to life, but also empowers other women facing difficult pregnancies to do the same.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) Not content to allow former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin to have the last word on the Focus on the Family ad touting Tim Tebow’s mother’s decision to not have an abortion, the National Organization for Women (NOW) is attacking Palin.

As LifeNews.com reported Palin wrote a lengthy FaceBook post talking up the ad and Pam Tebow’s decision to not have an abortion when pregnant with the college football star.

The potential 2012 presidential candidate said the ad and Tebow’s decision“empowers women” to choose life when confronted with a difficult pregnancy situation.

Palin continued her criticism of NOW, which has called on CBS to flip-flop on its decision to pull the ad.

“For a pro-life, pro-woman, pro-family ad to be seen as offensive and not empowering women is puzzling,” Palin told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Thursday. “It makes you wonder what is NOW afraid of?”

If You Think U.S. Planned Parenthood is Bad…

1-30-10 Posted by admin in Abortion, Blog, Featured Articles, Gallery, Recent Articles 1 Comments

By Brenda Steele

I had to count to 10 before I was able to simmer down after reading this tripe from the International Planned Parenthood Federation. They are “demanding” that children as young as “10 years of age” be provided with “comprehensive sexuality education.”

IPPF calls young  people, “sexual beings.” I call them children.

IPPF claims that “With young people as partners, today’s adult decision-makers have the chance to recast sex and sexuality as a positive force for change and development, as a source of pleasure, an embodiment of human rights and an expression of self.”

Gee, and I thought our role as adults and Catholic parents was to provide our children with moral education and spiritual formation.  My parents were certainly not my “partners,” and I, certainly, was not a partner to my children. I was their parent…someone who understood that it was my duty as a parent to emulate through prayer and service those Christian virtues that were necessary for them to be “reborn to life” and become “children of God” as St. Augustine said.

JPII had this to say in his Letter to Families (LTF): “To give birth according to the flesh means to set in motion a further ‘birth,’ one which is gradual and complex and which continues in the whole process of education.”

So, the IPPF thinks it should “parent” the children of the world. What we experienced in the 60s as the “free love” movement, would be nothing compared to this.


New York, NY (LifeNews.com/CFAM) In its new report “Stand and Deliver,” the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) is demanding that governments, religious institutions and society at large provide “comprehensive sexuality education” for children as young as ten years old.

In a foreword, Bert Koenders of the Development Cooperation of the Netherlands, which helped fund the publication, asserts that, “Young people have the right to be fully informed about sexuality and to have access to contraceptives and other services. These rights are enshrined in various internationally agreed human rights convention and treaties, but – unfortunately – they are still not universally respected.”

According to IPPF, as “young people are sexual beings,” it should be self-evident that “sexuality education promotes individual well-being and the advancement of broader societal and public health goals.” IPPF argues that “comprehensive sexuality education” must be mandatory in school, and governments must also ensure that this education is delivered to those young people who are out of school.

IPPF contends that comprehensive sexuality education is necessary to encourage young people’s “self-esteem, thoughtful decision-making and negotiation skills and it helps them to develop satisfying and pleasurable sexual lives.” Moreover, IPPF expounds that the “power” of comprehensive sexuality education “to challenge traditional gender roles” must not be underestimated.

Knights of Columbus Poll Youth on Direction Nation is Taking

1-29-10 Posted by admin in Blog, Featured Articles, Gallery, Recent Articles 0 Comments

America’s young adults are concerned about the economic and moral direction of our nation. A majority of “millenials” (between 18 – 19) are worried that the prevailing economic situation in our country will have a negative impact on their careers. They have lost confidence in government and in business leaders, according to a recent Knights of Columbus poll conducted by the Marist Institute.

Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus stated that, “They [youth] want less greed, and the same core values that govern an executive’s personal life to also govern business decisions. ”

Read more poll results here:

New Haven, Conn., Jan 28, 2010 / 06:53 pm (CNA).- According to a recent poll conducted by the Marist Institute for the Knights of Columbus, young Americans are increasingly doubting the nation’s ethical standards in business as well as the government’s ability to handle the economy.

“A year into the Obama administration, we find that Americans – and younger Americans – are having a crisis of confidence,” said Carl Anderson, CEO of the Knights of Columbus, on Thursday.

The poll found that American adults and Millennials (those between 18 and 29) are worried about their careers in this economy, opposed government regulation and business greed, and even felt that the country is headed in the wrong direction morally.

Archbishop Chaput Urges Spiritual Combat

1-29-10 Posted by admin in Blog, Featured Issues 0 Comments

Archbishop Chaput of Denver, speaking in Rome to the Emmanuel Community, has urged Catholics to engage in “spiritual combat” against Satan: “I think we live in disappointing times, in times of confusion, and in some ways that is the result of our failure to understand that we have an enemy in the Devil, but also we have enemies in the world around us. I think it’s important to understand that we are in a battle. We really do live in a time of spiritual combat, and I think we’ve lost that sense of the Church,” Archbishop Chaput stated.

Senate Passes Iran Sanctions on Gasoline Imports

1-29-10 Posted by admin in Blog, Featured Articles, Gallery, Recent Articles 0 Comments

By Deal Hudson

The Senate, yesterday, passed the sanctions bill intended to pressure Iran to end its uranium enrichment program.  Passed on a voice vote, the Senate’s action follows the December approval of a similar bill by the House.

As I explained in a column on Monday, the Senate action had been delayed because of pressure from the White House.

Both President Obama and Sec. Clinton expressed concern that sanctions on gasoline would create too heavy a burden on the Iranian people rather than target the radical elites — the Revolutionary Guard — who control the country. The White House is hoping that a more flexible version of the bill will emerge from conference, but that is unlikely according to Laura Rozen of Politico.com.

Specifically the bill would:

Impose a broad ban on direct imports from Iran to the United States and exports from the United States to Iran, exempting food and medicines

Require the Obama administration to freeze the assets of Iranians, including Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, who are active in weapons proliferation or terrorism

Allow state and local governments and private asset fund managers to easily divest from energy firms doing business with Iran

Strengthen export controls to stop the illegal black market export of sensitive technology to Iran through other countries

Impose tough new licensing requirements on those who refuse to cooperate

Iran has the third largest petroleum reserves in the world but must import 40 percent of its gasoline because it lacks refining capacity.

As Haaretz reports, the Senate acted in the midst of continued political chaos in Iran:

The Senate acted on the same day that Iran hanged two men convicted in the wake of political unrest in the country. ‘The situation in Iran is terrible and it’s worsening. People are dying in Iran as we speak,’ said Senator John McCain just before the Senate vote.

After a month of hesitation, it’s encouraging to see the White House and the Senate turn its attention to the growing nuclear threat of Iran.  Russia, evidently, has also shown signs of supporting sanctions as well, further underscoring the reality of Iran’s belligerent development of nuclear weapons.

The Most Pro-Abortion President: Barack Obama

Brad Mattes, writing for LifeNews.com has compiled a lengthy list of President Obama’s “pro-abortion accomplishments” during the past year. His research confirms what we already know: Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president in the history of our nation.

Mattes, executive director of Life Issues Institute, a pro-life educational group, lists these “accomplishments” month by month.

Obama’s first pro-abortion maneuver came his first day in office when he rescinded the Mexico City Policy which kept U.S. money from being spent on abortion internationally. And his pro-abortion record just went downhill from there, unless you belong to Planned Parenthood and consider it going uphill.

Brad Mattes, no doubt, would like President Obama to discover what pro-lifers know by reason, the natural law, and/or by faith: America has no greater resource than ALL its people, including the preborn.

In his State of the Union speech the president said those in office shouldn’t “avoid telling hard truths.” Well, Mr. President, the hard truth is that the America you lead is predominately pro-life, a fact that you seem to have ignored at your own political peril — we won’t speak of the spiritual peril.

Here is the beginning of Mattes’s helpful account of Obama’s dismal life record thus far:

By Brad Mattes, Life Issues Institute

I promised I wouldn’t just do what was popular. I would do what was necessary.” — President Obama, State of the Union 2010

Mr. President, what you’ve done has been neither popular nor necessary.

Not a word was said, during last night’s State of the Union address, about the administration’s pro-abortion ‘accomplishments.’ But they are many.

In January, just days after taking office, Mr. Obama rescinded a policy to keep US money out of international clinics that promote and offer abortions. Early nominations to the administration included the attorney who fought to starve and dehydrate Terri Schindler Schiavo.

By February, Mr. Obama took away protections for healthcare workers who could not in good conscience agree to assist in abortions.

Politicians Need to Get Off Their High Horses

1-28-10 Posted by admin in Blog, Featured Articles, Gallery, Recent Articles 1 Comments

Jay Heiler uses his acerbic wit to chastise politicians on both sides for being “high priests.” He calls for a return to being servants of the people rather than “seeking to be served.” Heiler has his pulse on the people of America and the righteous anger they feel toward big government. Read his op-ed at the Arizona Republic to see who he points his finger at and why.

Jay participated in Catholic Advocate’s LIVE BLOG during the president’s State of the Union address. We hope to see more of his writing here at Catholic Advocate!

Jay Heiler is a public-affairs consultant. He was chief of staff in the administration of former Arizona Gov. Fife Symington.

Dems Don’t Get It: Voters are Fed Up

By Jay Heiler, The Arizona Republic

Last week came three days that changed the world – at least the political world.

The Massachusetts Senate election on Tuesday and a Supreme Court decision on Thursday landed hard to the gut and the jaw of the Democratic Party.

There seems to have been brain trauma. James Carville, big talker of the left, weighed in hurriedly as an “international political consultant,” in a Financial Times column dispatched from the Seychelle Islands. Carville assured us “Teddy’s seat” was lost because Democrats have failed to blame George W. Bush for the nation’s problems.

Blame him? The Democrats have been feeding on Bush for four years. There’s nothing left of him but his dental work. Carville can bray as loud and long as any hoven beast in the political barnyard, but this marks new heights of the asinine.

Obama Fails to Seize the Opportunity of His Big Night

By Deal Hudson

President Obama gave his first State of the Union speech last night.With his popularity in a steady decline for the past six months, Obama needed his speech to rekindle the enthusiasm for his leadership that elected him in the first place.  Thus far, there is no evidence to suggest he was successful.

If his State of the Union had been a Broadway Show, the morning reviews would have closed the show in the first week.

One reason for Obama’s inability to reverse his popularity slide is his decision to ignore the fact that a majority of Americans do not support some of his key initiatives. In a Rasmussen poll taken just before the speech, 61 percent want Obama and the Congress to drop health care reform and focus on jobs. But Obama ignored this widespread resistance and called on Congress to get the bill passed, saying, “We need health insurance reform.”

Simply renaming health care reform “health insurance reform” will not solve Obama’s political puzzle, nor the underlying problems of the legislation.  But this is typical of the president’s approach to political obstacles — change the language, not the substance, and people will drop their objections.

The speech itself broke no new ground either in tone or substance.  Obama continued to blame the Bush administration for his inability to rebuild the economy and the GOP for the lack of meaningful legislation passed (in particular, health care reform).

Most unsettling was Obama’s dressing down of the Supreme Court – who were all sitting directly in front of him — for their recent decision lifting the restrictions on corporate contributions to political advertising.  This presidential faux pas elicited a wincing, head-shaking “that’s not true” from Justice Samuel Alito, which quickly became a popular YouTube video.

Alito’s response is already being called the “Joe Wilson moment” of the evening, referring to the South Carolina Congressman’s “You lie!” outburst during the president’s last speech to Congress in September.  Needless to say, it doesn’t help Obama that such strong gut reactions became part of the media narrative of an evening that was to be the resuscitation of his presidency.


Other than stumbling over the separation of powers tripwire,
the most awkward moment for Obama was the laughter, even from Speaker Pelosi, following his declaration, “Starting in 2111, we are prepared to cap government spending for three years.” Embarrassed by the laughter from both sides of the chamber, Obama awkwardly ad-libbed, “That’s how budgets work.” But his speech never recovered its momentum.

If Obama was trying to revive his popularity with independents, he chose a strange moment to announce the end of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the U. S. military.  Passed by the 103rd Congress in 1993, this policy regarding homosexuals in the military was signed by Bill Clinton, a master of attracting and keeping the support of independents.  Why Obama would choose to pay homage to his far-left base when he is hemorrhaging independents and blue-dog Democrats is inexplicable.

Some of the punditry following the speech was bizarre.  NBC’s Chris Matthews made two contradictory statements. First, he called Obama’s speech “post-racial,” whatever that means, but then added, “Tonight, I forgot he was black.” What? If Matthews had ‘forgotten Obama was black,’ he wouldn’t have mentioned it at all.

Obama’s State of the Union will do nothing to help his popularity, nor will it dilute the potency of Scott Brown’s victory on January 19.  The president should have spoken directly to the discontent that created an election environment where a Republican could win the seat Ted Kennedy held for 46 years. Instead, he chose to play the martyr to those ‘malevolent Republicans.’


Debating Same-Sex Marriage in Boulder

Monday night, at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Maggie Gallagher and Johnathan Rauch debated whether or not the government should recognize same-sex marriages. Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, and Rauch, senior writer for National Journal magazine, presented their arguments based on the concept of the purpose of marriage.

Believing marriage to be a “unique” relationship between a man and a woman, Gallagher  insisted that it is “wrong for the government to insist, through the use of law, that we all believe same-sex unions are marriages.”

Rauch, for his part, proclaimed that if society does not recognize same-sex unions then marriage will come to be defined as a “civil rights violation” for its exclusion of homosexuals. Marriage is now viewed as simply a “life-style” choice according to Rauch.

Gallagher’s closing remarks indicate her belief that if homosexual unions are viewed as viable and legal marriages then the “core understanding” of marriage will be forever changed, for us and more importantly, for our children.

Let us hope, pray, and work to ensure our Church’s teaching on marriage is not defiled by those who would define it as a “life-style” choice.


Boulder, Colo., Jan 26, 2010 / 09:10 pm (CNA).- A crowd of hundreds heard two leaders in the debate over government recognition of same-sex “marriage” defend their positions Monday evening in a crowded lecture hall at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

The event, sponsored by the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center, drew an audience generally supportive of the redefinition of marriage.

The debaters were Maggie Gallagher, an author, social commentator and the president of the National Organization for Marriage; and Jonathan Rauch, a senior writer for National Journal magazine and an author of several books on public policy, culture and economics.