She Makes This Parish Sound Lovely -- It Is!

My fellow parishioner Prayerie Girl writes about the mass as it's celebrated at our parish:

As a sojourner for most of the 12 years since my return to the Church I have been restless going from parish to parish. At first most places felt warm and open but after a few years or in some cases several months I would feel restless again--- like something didn't feel quite right. Finally, one day I realized what was lost was the feeling of holiness--- or today what I would call the loss of the sense of the sacred.

Going to church, I realized, felt more like going to a social club. Before Mass there was so much chatter and laughter (in the sanctuary)that one could not pray or recollect themselves in preparation for the Great Mysteries we are privileged to participate in.

Soon little things jumped out at me. I felt like the liturgy was more a performance and the priest was the star performer. Fellow parishioners chose Mass according to who was going to be center stage or who was doing the music. I noticed that the hymns we sung tended to be more about us. Rather than praising God we would be singing with, as the author of this article says Good Hymns, Bad Hymns "a vibe of self-congratulation. Here we are, Lord, doing your thing. Ain't we special?"

Not that Latin is a magic shot that restores the Liturgy but there is some thing to be said preserving Latin for sacred use. Just as we use our fancy china and crystal for special occasions and special guests (imagine a Whitehouse dinner on chinet plates with solo cups and plastic silverware!!!) using a sacred language elevates the occasion beyond the mundane. It is an immediate reminder that we no longer belong to this world--- that we are privileged to be members of the Heavenly Kingdom sojourning here on earth for a while.

It is not that I am some liturgy expert what happened is I finally found a parish 2 1/2 years ago where I stopped feeling restless. Where I felt going to Mass was about worshiping God--- not about celebrating ourselves or being at a stage show. I also realized it had a lot to do with the very things that changed so dramatically after the second Vatican Council.

1. The priest and the people face the same direction towards the east(at least liturgical east) the direction we expect Jesus to come from when he returns. The priest isn't the center of the liturgy. We are participating with him--- not watching a show.
2. The Choir is behind us--- not up front as the back-up band to the priest.
3. We have a Communion rail---further emphasizing the sacredness of what happens up on the altar. Aside from those who can't--- almost everyone kneels and receives on the tongue--- BY CHOICE.
4. Last but certainly not least both forms of the Roman Rite are celebrated there. Even in the ordinary form Latin is reserved for parts of the Mass. It is not confusing, difficult or distracting--- after a few weeks you don't even need to look them up in the missal--- and since the Latin is used for parts of the Mass everyone knows well (Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, memorial acclimation) there is no need for translation since you already know what you are saying from the English versions.

These are just a few of my perceptions after finding my parish home--- the other one which surprised me at first--- it isn't just a bunch of old fogies like me who were raised on the "old" Mass--- it is mainly young people and young families--- many of whom had never participated in the Tridentine Mass--- IOW's they sought it out and found it more enriching than the reformed Masses they grew up on.

Why Pro-Life People Cannot Support Mark Kirk For U.S. Senate

It's about the Supreme Court!

Here in Illinois, Congressman Mark Kirk is the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Democrat Roland Burris, who was appointed to the seat by now-impeached former-Governor Rod Blagojevich. The seat was previously held by Democrat Barack Obama, who resigned it upon his election to the presidency, Republican Peter Fitzgerald, who is still fondly remembered by Illinois conservatives, Democrat Carol Mosely-Braun, and, somewhat earlier in history, Stephen Douglas (who successfully defended the seat in 1858 from a challenge by Abraham Lincoln).

Rep. Kirk, a reserve Naval officer, handily won a primary in which several much more conservative, but unfortunately much less-well-funded and less-politically-experienced, opponents sought to prevent his nomination.

Frankly, conservatives in Illinois were scrambling to find a winning conservative to unite behind, and never did achieve much in the way of consensus. Kirk was the favorite of the Republican hierarchy and leadership from early on, and dominated the primary throughout.

The reason for this conservative angst is Kirk's very liberal voting record on fiscal, social and foreign-policy issues.

But while his votes as a Congressman are relevant and instructive, what I find most chilling in the contemplation of a possible "Senator Mark Kirk" is the influence that Senators have over the makeup of the federal judiciary, particularly including the Supreme Court, and the paramount importance of the judiciary to the issue of abortion law in America.

You probably know that Presidents appoint federal judges. But what you may not know is that these appointments are often made on the recommendation of senators from the president's own party.

Mark Kirk, who voted against the ban on partial birth abortion, and who enjoys a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, is as pro-abortion as any Democrat in Congress.

So imagine, if you will, that Mark Kirk is elected to the Senate in 2010. Given the current difficulties of his Democratic opponent, that scenario looks quite likely from our mid-April vantage-point.

Imagine further, that in 2012 America elects a Republican President. It's a long two-and-a-half years until then, and anything can happen, but that might.

So, if Illinois elects a Republican Senator, and America elects a Republican President, isn't that a good thing? Even if the Senator is a pro-abort, the President probably would be pro-life. It's presidents that appoint judges. Right?

True, but... Senators recommend those appointments. And pro-abort Republican Senators have a poor history in this regard. Chicago political veteran Tom Roeser recounts how GOP pro-abort Senator Charles Percy persuaded President Ford to appoint Justice John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court:

Percy told me once he thought the most important aspect of his job as senator was to recommend to the Republican White House people for the judiciary. And appointee to the Supreme Court can transcend the work of many term-hobbled politicians and presidents. Right he was.

Then as now the senior Republican choice for judge was usually honored. When Justice William O. Douglas, a radical, retired Percy promoted John Paul Stevens. Stevens by Percy’s reckoning was a natural: a rich man, heir to the old Stevens hotel, a Brahmin. President Gerald Ford nominated Stevens and that’s what we got today...

Percy’s revenge... his lifelong struggle to be one of the elites, to shuck his past, to be a statesman... from his elevator shoes to the top of his sandy, slightly turned graying hair. By advocating John Paul Stevens, who today refuses to say whether he is still a Republican, Percy got to force change from the Left.

Only trouble is Percy doesn’t know anything about it—and nobody can tell him. He’s committed as an Alzheimer’s patient where he wanders (supervised) through rooms and rooms searching—searching-searching. But all the same, it’s the culmination of revenge…revenge for once being poor, a member of the working class... which he excelled by every measure of standard. Except one.

No one ever figured out the real Chuck Percy and what he once was.

And that, my friends, is what you have to worry about when you determine to vote for a RINO because... well as the saying goes... the other guy would be so much worse. [Empahsis in original.]

New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman, too, persuaded the first President Bush to appoint pro-abort David Souter to the Court:

Is he pro-life or pro-choice? That was the giant unknown hanging in the balance one day in 1990 as President George H. W. Bush nominated a mystery man named David Souter for a Supreme Court seat. Both sides of the abortion issue badly wanted answers. I remember those debates, and especially the uncertainty.

America got its answer in 1992 in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, a seminal decision bearing the name of Pennsylvania’s pro-life Democrat governor. In that landmark case, Justice David Souter was the decisive swing vote in the narrow 5-4 majority, enshrining Roe v. Wade as law of the land.

Among those most euphoric over Souter’s vote were two liberal Senators from opposing parties: Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.) and Senator Warren Rudman (R-N.H.).

Rudman had pushed the Souter nomination. He ensured liberal colleagues that Souter was their guy. Rudman, a pro-choice Republican, had been Souter’s boss at the New Hampshire office of attorney general. He privately concluded that Souter would not vote against Roe. Rudman’s reasons, which he acknowledged only after he left the Senate, ranged from the legal to humanitarian: Given that Souter was “a compassionate human being,” averred Rudman, he would naturally support continued legalization of abortion—which has produced the deaths of over 40 million unborn babies since 1973.

But Rudman’s allies on the Democratic side weren’t so sure. And Rudman had to walk a fine line, since his pro-life president wanted a pro-life justice. So, Rudman quietly sought to assuage liberals. He urged them to trust him.

That silent trust was critical, since Souter’s position on abortion had to be dealt with stealthily. In fact, it was handled so delicately that the nominee’s true thinking was apparently unknown even to the White House.

Alas, with Casey v. Planned Parenthood, America had its answer, as Souter authorized the sanctity of Roe v. Wade.

As fate would have it, on that same day Senator Rudman and Senator Joe Biden bumped into each other at the train station, not in Washington, DC but in Wilmington, Delaware.

"At first, I didn’t see Joe; then I spotted him waving at me from far down the platform," Rudman later recorded in his memoirs, Combat: Twelve Years in the U.S. Senate. "Joe had agonized over his vote for David, and I knew how thrilled he must be. We started running through the crowd toward each other, and when we met, we embraced, laughing and crying."

An ecstatic Biden wept tears of joy, telling Rudman over and over: "You were right about him [Souter]! ... You were right!"

The two men were so jubilant, so giddy—practically dancing—that Rudman said onlookers thought they were crazy: "[B]ut we just kept laughing and yelling and hugging each other because sometimes, there are happy endings."

It was sheer bliss: Roe v. Wade had been saved; it was alive. The two senators, liberal Democrat and liberal Republican, were so overcome that they sobbed. It was the most joyous moment.

Now, Justice Stevens has announced his retirement, and President Obama will shortly be appointing his second pro-abort justice to the Supreme Court.

Pro-abort Catholics and Democrats who supported Obama in spite of their lying claims to be pro-life have been shown what might have been, had McCain been elected: two new Supreme Court justices who might have voted to overturn Roe.

But real pro-lifers must not stumble into the error of setting up the next such circumstance by supporting Kirk for Senate.

But suppose Kirk is elected to the Senate, and Obama is re-elected President? Won't he be an important vote against the Obama agenda? Will he? Really? Kirk voted against Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The guy is so pro-abortion that he opposes parental notification. He supported "Cap & Trade," and hate crimes legislation, and opposed the partial-birth abortion ban and the amendment to defend traditional marriage.

But isn't he "better than Alexi Giannoulias", his Democrat opponent? Not that I can tell. It's about the Supreme Court. Does anyone really believe that a Senator Mark Kirk would oppose Barack Obama's next pro-abort nominee to the Court? Or that a Senator Kirk would support a Republican president's pro-life nominee?

I don't believe it.

If we elect Mark Kirk, it will be 12-18 years before conservatives can have another shot at this office. If Giannoulias is elected, conservatives can try again in six years.

Mark Kirk has bragged about his "independence" from Republican positions throughout his Congressional career. Republicans should be proud to show their independence from Kirk.

Newest Klavan: Explaining The New York Times

I love his reason for the attacks on Pope Benedict!



(H/T: Is Anybody There?)

Speeches to the Values Alliance Breakfast

April 10th, 2010

As the MC, I opened by welcomed the 150+ attendees by making two points about conservative unity:



Then, Lake County GOP Chairman Bob Cook introduced GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady, mentioning a corned beef & cabbage dinner in Wauconda Township:



There is a part 2, but it has technical difficulties. I'll post it when it's available.

Next I introduced RALC Chairman Ray True, who introduced Joe Walsh:







This is the guy I want for my congressman.

Next, I introduced Jack Roeser, to introduce Dan Sugrue, running for the Illinois legislature:







Thanks to Michael Brown and the Republican Renaissance Project for these videos!

Consequences, Intended And Otherwise

It's long been my motto to never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere stupidity.

Stupdity doesn't explain this:

Flush with the victory of passing their nationalization of the health insurance industry in March, the Democratic leadership in Washington was interrupted in the middle of their celebratory bacchanalia by some stuffy businessmen filing unpleasant forecast revisions with the SEC.

Yup, without so much as a “By your leave,” well-known corporations started announcing their formal assessments of what Obamacare was going to cost their shareholders, their employees, and especially, their retirees. A hundred million dollars here, a half billion there… and the surprise of them all, a whopping billion at AT&T.

Not to worry, Rep. Henry Waxman (D, the Grandstands) knew just what to do. As he’s done countless times before, he knew exactly how to terrorize his opponents into submission: he announced an investigation, and started summoning these meddlesome executives to Washington for public hearings on April 21, 2010. No stuffed shirt exec is gonna rain on our parade and live to tell about it!

Only, for once, it didn’t quite work as planned. April 21 has come and gone, with no CEO witch-hunt on Capitol Hill (at least, not in response to this particular issue).

Economists like to attribute things to natural laws of economics and human nature. One of the most useful of these is the Law of Unintended Consequences. By simply acknowledging that life is incredibly complicated, it says that every action is bound to have some unexpected results if you look hard enough. This law therefore explains away almost anything that happens, and gives forecasters and politicians a convenient out if they didn’t see it coming.

The present subject is full of different examples of this law:

• The goal was to force everybody to have health coverage; we couldn’t predict every byproduct of such an important and sweeping reform. Or
  
• We knew that businesses would have to pay their fair share of the healthcare burden; we couldn’t have anticipated how heavily it would hurt some of America’s biggest employers. Or
  
• When you’re trying to Change America, some of the unexpected changes are bound to have negative impacts on a few people here or there; you can’t really complain if it turns out that you happen to fall into the tiny subset of those negatively affected people… think of the greater good: We’re Changing America, right?!

Or the toughest unintended consequence of all:

• Sure, the Conservatives predicted that these changes in the tax law would cost American employers, employees, and investors hundreds of billions of dollars… but since we managed to make sure nobody listened to them before the bill passed, we never dreamed anybody would find out about their prediction afterward!

In fact, there are no unintended consequences in Obamacare. Everything that’s happening to America as a result of that bill’s passage was indeed intended all along – from scores of doctors announcing their retirement, to insurance companies having to raise their rates, to employers realizing that they’ll have to drastically cut many of their suddenly much-more-expensive benefits, to investors realizing that many of the companies in which their life’s savings are invested are suddenly worth much less than they were a month ago.

The Democrats planned every bit of it. While markets are not a zero-sum game, politics are: the Left can only gain power when the free market loses power, so they’ve set out to erode as much value and opportunity in the free market as possible, as fast as they possibly can. They knew exactly how much damage they were doing to the American economy by passing this bill; that’s why they passed it. Prosperous, independent citizens don’t depend on government for anything, so you can’t control them. When you play the game of dependency politics, you need to make people dependent on government, the faster the better.

The more they can do to break up families and destroy the free market economy, the greater will be the cries for the government to accept our liberty in return for its largesse.

The only question is, can the tide be turned in time?

Happy Tax Day!

Just try to remember today when November 2nd rolls around!

(H/T: Illinois Review.)

Tea Party Can't Succeed Without Social Conservatives

I was asked last month to serve on the board of the new Lake County Tea Party organization. I have also this week been elected to the board of Lake County Right to Life.

Last Saturday, I gave a speech to about 160 Lake County conservatives, including the Lake County Republican chairman, three township Republican chairman, the Chair of the Lake County Board, the Lake County Sherriff, a village mayor, a congressional candidate and three candidates for the state legislature and a member of the state GOP finance committee, as well as numerous activists in pro-life, 9-12 and Tea Party organizations, in which I (in part) said the following:

...anyone who knows me knows that I am a social conservative. I am also a fiscal conservative. I am also a foreign policy hawk. I see no conflict between these positions; indeed, it seems to me that each without the others would be incomplete.

Imagine if you will a society that embraced abortion, euthanasia, easy divorce and gay marriage, and that denigrated family life and religious faith. Could such a society, placing personal pleasure above family responsibility, ever show enough self-reliance to adopt fiscally conservative policies geared towards smaller government and lower taxes? I have a pretty good imagination, but I can’t imagine that. Could such a society find among its numbers enough young men with the courage and spirit of self-sacrifice to maintain its ability to defend its borders and its interests? I don’t believe so.

Likewise, would a people who turn first to government for the answer to every problem be likely to show the sense of responsibility necessary to defend life and family? I seriously doubt it.

I could go on in this vein, but I think you see my point. Our conservatism can be comprehensive, or it can be incomplete. And if incomplete, then it will be unstable and unworkable in the long run.

This morning in my email I find a link to this lovely piece on the Illinois Family Institute website authored by my bloggin' buddy Fran Eaton, who is also the editor of Illinois Review. Fran seems to agree with my basic thesis, and expands on it very well, I think:

You've got to shake your head a little at the exploding number of folks on the streets shouting and holding signs saying, "We're taxed enough already!" or "Smaller government, less taxes!" or the ever popular "Free markets, not socialism!"

It's not that they're not absolutely right to be angry and frustrated about how things are moving in America. They are. It's not that they shouldn't be out on the streets. They should be.

The problem is most demonstrators offer no solutions, except to "Throw the bums out!"

Those angry protestors have realized that as a nation, we're in a mess. Rather than get angrier and angrier about what's happened, the question should now be what do we do to get out of it?

Over the past few years, conservatives have been hammered to talk about limited government, individual rights and free markets. Okay, we get it -- the bigger the government, the bigger the federal and state budgets, the greater the demand for revenue and the more the state dips into our pockets.

The more we pay into the state and federal coffers, the less we have in our family budgets. The less discretion we have in determining where our hard-earned money goes, the harder the family's members have to work to meet basic needs. We're forced to pay taxes rather than buy the groceries our growing children need.

How did we get in this mess? Is it all Congress' fault? If we lived in a country where we had no voice in government matters, we would be justified in placing blame at our lawmakers' feet.

Instead, we need to own up to where we've failed ourselves and our posterity. This is not fun to write, but friends, we really have no one to blame but ourselves.

We say we want smaller government, but we rush to state services to care for our children while we work, to educate them when they are old enough to enter school. In many cases, we take advantage of "free" school breakfast and lunch programs, increasing our and our children's comfort with the Nanny State.

We ask the state to help us when we can't afford to buy a house we want and we look to the state to bail us out if we run our credit cards too high. Now we're asking the state to provide our health care needs and shelter and feed Grandma and Grandpa when they get too old and bothersome.

And when it comes time to vote and voice our opinions to those lawmakers, we stay home, disengaged in the process and contributing directly to our own economic distress.

Everyone can excuse their need for turning to the state rather than the family or the church when things get tough. The state is there, accessible, and there's little or no accountability. At the same time, families are sapped and drained, and modern day churches are often more focused on growing programs than helping families through emergencies.

When a family doesn't provide for its own, and the church isn't in tune with the body's needs, in most cases, the state is the only place left to go. The more needy folks turn to the state, the bigger the demand for state's provisions, the bigger their budget, and the more demands on taxpayers to provide the needed revenue for those programs.

These days, more and more political action groups and non-profit think tanks shy away from discussing traditional family values. They tell us not to write or talk about the value of the traditional family, one-man/one-woman marriage and the sanctity of life because it is divisive and inappropriate. They also tell candidates to focus on jobs and the economy rather than touchy social topics.

The fact is you can't avoid traditional family values, because they are the basis of a free society. Without a strong traditional family, there's an urgency for others to step in, increasing the size and grip of the Nanny State and her demands for our hard-earned resources and energy.

We end up serving the Nanny when she's meant to assist us. And that causes nothing but more and more societal dysfunction.

It's time for us - traditional family proponents - to speak up and direct the way out of this mess. It's time for us to extol publicly the values of healthy, nurturing families that raise and train up children to be productive, independent and most importantly, dependent on the Heavenly Father for their wants and needs.

The traditional family is the answer to the frustration so many are voicing these days.

You want smaller government? Strengthen your family. Your want more individual freedoms? Teach yourself and your kids self-control. You want free markets? Teach the value of hard work, competition and the rejection of corruption and greed.

We need to accept responsibility for allowing our nation to get in the mess we're in. But we also need to boldly proclaim the way out, and that's with the resurgence of the traditional family and a return to dependence on the one source that can truly provide for all our needs. Emphasis added.

Republicans Set To Win Big

... if we don't blow it!

From RealClearPolitics:

So how bad could 2010 get for the Democrats? Let me say upfront that I tend to agree with analysts who argue that if we move into a "V"-shaped recovery and President Obama's job approval improves, Democratic losses could be limited to twenty or twenty-five seats.

That said, I think those who suggest that the House is barely in play, or that we are a long way from a 1994-style scenario are missing the mark. A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility - not merely a far-fetched scenario - that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn't be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats. [Emphasis in original.]

Retreating From The Final Frontier

In an open letter to President Obama from Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong (the first man to walk on the moon), Apollo 17 commander Eugene Cernan (the last man on the moon), and Apollo 8 & 13 commander James Lovell, the first man to make two trips to the moon), these American heroes decry the president's embrace of national mediocrity in his policy of canceling NASA's plans for future manned spaceflight.

I appreciate seeing that I'm not the only one who objects to the cancellation of our manned space program (H/T: Cold Fury):

The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower’s first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years. Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third; of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration.

America’s space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the secrets of the cosmos; space technology was providing instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all else, the people around the world were inspired by the human exploration of space and the expanding of man’s frontier. It suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now within reach. Students were inspired to prepare themselves to be a part of this new age. No government program in modern history has been so effective in motivating the young to do “what has never been done before.”

World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation. In the latter part of the first half century of the space age, Americans and their international partners focused primarily on exploiting the near frontiers of space with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.

As a result of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, it was concluded that our space policy required a new strategic vision. Extensive studies and analysis led to this new mandate: meet our existing commitments, return to our exploration roots, return to the moon, and prepare to venture further outward to the asteroids and to Mars. The program was named "Constellation." In the ensuing years, this plan was endorsed by two Presidents of different parties and approved by both Democratic and Republican congresses.

The Columbia Accident Board had given NASA a number of recommendations fundamental to the Constellation architecture which were duly incorporated. The Ares rocket family was patterned after the Von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn 5. A number of components in the Ares 1 rocket would become the foundation of the very large heavy lift Ares V, thus reducing the total development costs substantially. After the Ares 1 becomes operational, the only major new components necessary for the Ares V would be the larger propellant tanks to support the heavy lift requirements.

The design and the production of the flight components and infrastructure to implement this vision was well underway. Detailed planning of all the major sectors of the program had begun. Enthusiasm within NASA and throughout the country was very high.

When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.

Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the President’s proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.

It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.

For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.

Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.

Neil Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11

James Lovell
Commander, Apollo 13

Eugene Cernan
Commander, Apollo 17

Exclusive: Archbishop Burke Speaks

(Text and images courtesy of Michael Wick of the Institute on Religious Life)

2010 National Meeting
Institute on Religious Life
Mundelein, Illinois
April 10, 2010


BANQUET ADDRESS:
RECEPTION OF THE PRO FIDELITATE ET VIRTUTE AWARD


Introduction

I am deeply honored to receive the 2010 Pro Fidelitate et Virtute Award from the Institute on Religious Life. Because of the great esteem which I have for the apostolate of the Institute on Religious Life, I am especially honored. I express my gratitude to the Officers of the Institute and, in particular, to His Excellency, the Most Reverend Thomas G. Doran, President, and to Father Thomas Nelson, O. Praem.; Mr. Michael Wick, and all of the staff of the Institute.

In receiving the Award which is given to individuals “who manifest a strong love for the Church and a zealous commitment to the consecrated life,” I am deeply conscious of the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the Apostles, recorded in the Gospel according to Saint Luke:

“Will any one of you, who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep, say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down at table’? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and gird yourself and serve me, till I eat and drink; and afterward you shall eat and drink’? Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’” (Lk 17:7-10).

Tonight’s honor makes me deeply conscious of the great gift which God has given me to serve His Church as a priest and Bishop, of how much more I could have done in the past, and of how much more I must yet do, in fidelity to my vocation and to the grace of ordination to the Priesthood and Episcopacy. Whatever good I have done has been my duty; I only wish I had served Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church with greater fidelity and strength.

In thanking you for the great honor which you have bestowed upon me in presenting me with the Pro Fidelitate et Virtute Award, I ask God to give me the grace to live up to the honor received, to grow in fidelity and in strength in my service of Him and of His flock entrusted into my care.

Gratitude for the Consecrated Life

In offering a few reflections inspired by the reception of the Pro Fidelitate et Virtute Award, I want, first of all, to express my deepest esteem and gratitude to the faithful and strong members of institutes of the consecrated life, with whom I have been privileged to work and whom I have been called to serve as a priest and Bishop. Most, if not all, of them are members of the Institute on Religious Life.

I think, for instance, of the privilege which was mine to serve as Episcopal Moderator of the United States Association of Consecrated Virgins from 1996 to 2008. Coming to a deeper knowledge of this most ancient form of consecrated life, as it remains vital and new in the life of the Church today, has been a great gift to me. In particular, I was inspired by the spousal love of these brides of Christ for their Bridegroom, especially their love of Him in His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Together with the love of our Eucharistic Lord, the consecrated virgins witness to a total love of the Church and, in particular, of her shepherds, especially their own Bishops, through their consecrated life lived in the world.

I think also of the great gift of working with Father John A. Hardon,S.J., during the last years of his life. My close collaboration with Father Hardon opened up more clearly to me the wonderful gift of the Holy Spirit given to Saint Ignatius of Loyola for the founding of the Society of Jesus. Father Hardon, in his profound concern for the state of the Church in our time, was particularly concerned with what had happened to consecrated religious life in the time immediately following upon the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. He rightly perceived that a number of individual religious and of religious congregations were alienating themselves from the font of their vocation, the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church. He rightly understood the consecrated life as work of the Holy Spirit for the growth of the whole Church in holiness of life. In his book, Religious Life Today, Father Hardon referred to “the laws of grace relative to religious life,” analogous to the laws of nature. He wisely observed:

The lesson that the current turmoil in religious life should teach us is that you cannot tamper with the laws of grace, any more than with the laws of nature, and not pay the consequences.

He identified the three principal “laws of grace relative to religious life”:

1. The foundation of authentic religious life is the following of Christ in the sacrifice of self, as revealed in the Gospels.
   
2. The fulfillment of authentic religious life is the practice of constant prayer, in order to obtain the light and strength our fallen human nature constantly needs if we are to approximate the holiness of Jesus.
   
3. The future of authentic religious life, even as the past, depends upon humble obedience to the Church’s teaching about form and visible structure.

These laws of grace are what guarantee the continuity of the vocation to the consecrated life for the salvation of the souls called to the vocation and for the good of the entire Church, which is served, in a most important way, by the consecrated life, by the closer following of Christ the Poor, the Chaste and the Obedient, on the part of consecrated persons.

Father Hardon did not just develop beautiful theories about religious life and the causes of the turmoil in religious life of our time. He established the Institute on Religious Life in 1974, “to encourage, support and assist authentic consecrated life as set forth by Vatican II and its implementation by the Holy See.” I take the occasion to express my deepest esteem and gratitude to the Institute for its fidelity to its mission so critical to the Church in our time.

I also cannot fail to mention with gratitude the great gift of coming to know the late Mother Mary Francis Aschmann, Poor Clare Colettine of Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery in Roswell, New Mexico, and the community of nuns for whom she was the Abbess for over 41 years. My visits with Mother Mary Francis and her community, and my correspondence with her led me to a much deeper understanding of the contemplative religious life and of its embrace of the entire Church and world through a life totally dedicated to prayer, solitude and penance.

Mother Mary Francis was an extraordinary religious and abbess. Thanks be to God, she has left us a great treasure in her writings which are not only full of spiritual wisdom but also enjoyable to read. In one of her writings, first published under the title, Marginals, and republished after her death under the title, Chastity, Poverty and Obedience, Mother presented the essential way of the renewal which the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council had mandated for religious life, writing:

Vatican Council II has urged us all to go forward. But in the Decree Perfectae Caritatis, it reminds us that we cannot properly go forward unless we look backward, nor soar upward if we do not plunge downward. Neither will it be sufficient to do this once. “The adaptation and renewal of the religious life includes both the constant return to the sources of all Christian life and to the original spirit of the institutes and their adaptation to the changed conditions of our time” (Perfectae Caritatis no. 2; hereafter abbreviated as PC). A constant return. How much of the Church’s ageless wisdom inflames that word; how much of her awareness of the stuff of which her children are made! “He knows what we are made of; he remembers that we are but dust” (Ps 103 [102]:14). So does the Church. She exhorts us to remember that if our efforts to proclaim a new message of religious life do not gather their strength from and discover their character in the original purpose of our religious life and the spirit of our founder, we shall only be carrying dust against the wind.

Mother Mary Francis knew the struggle of authentic renewal of religious life, in accord with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. She was faithful and strong in renewing religious life in her monastery, in accord with the gift of contemplative religious life, first given to Saint Clare of Assisi and reformed by Saint Colette of Corbie. Her joyful but firm adherence to the charism of the Poor Clare Colettine nuns cost her dearly but has borne lasting fruit for their life in our nation and far beyond. I am humbled to think that we share the honor of receiving the Pro Fidelitate et Virtute Award, which she received in 2002.

In speaking of contemplative religious, I am pleased to recall with greatest gratitude the number of contemplative women religious in the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, which I was privileged to serve from January 26, 2004 until June 27, 2008. I think especially of the Carmelites, the Pink Sisters (Holy Spirit Adoration Sisters) and the Poor Clares.

I am thinking, too, of the apostolic religious whom I have been privileged to know during my years as a priest and Bishop, and who have been an inspiration to me and have been outstanding co-workers in the apostolate. As Bishop of La Crosse, I was convinced of the need of a convent and house of formation for young women, in which the authentic renewal of religious life would be manifest. Mother M. Ingeborg Rohner, F.S.G.M., of the Saint Elizabeth of Hungary Province of the Franciscan Sisters of the Martyr Saint George put faith in what I was proposing to do and generously missioned four of her Sisters to the Diocese of La Crosse to undertake what was a new apostolate for her congregation. The Franciscan Sisters of the Martyr Saint George have continued to assist me, over the years, in a host of ways. I am deeply grateful for the witness of their consecrated life and the zeal with which they undertake the apostolate, all in fidelity to their spiritual father, Saint Francis of Assisi, and their foundress, Mother M. Anselma Bopp.

I also owe a deep depth of gratitude to the Nashville Dominicans who, after my eight years of begging, first for the Diocese of La Crosse and then for the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, missioned three Sisters to the Archdiocese of Saint Louis for the significant strengthening of the apostolate of the Catholic schools in the Archdiocese.

There are so many other communities who have remained faithful and strong in living the religious life, and who have been a great source of inspiration and strength for me. I am grateful for the faithful friendship of the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of Saint Mary and Saint Louis, the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Apostles of the Sacred Heart, the Carmelite Sisters of the Divine Heart of Jesus, and the Sisters Devoted to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, to name just some of the religious communities whose consecration and apostolates have been a great blessing to me. To all members of institutes of the consecrated life whom I have been privileged to know and with whom I have been privileged to work I express my heartfelt esteem and gratitude.

Turmoil in Religious Life

Sadly, the great joy of our gathering in these days to celebrate the life and death of Father John A. Hardon, S.J., an outstanding religious priest, and to honor and encourage so many institutes of the consecrated life which are striving to be faithful are overshadowed by the public and obstinate betrayal of religious life by certain religious. Who would ever imagine that religious congregations of Pontifical Right would openly organize to resist and to frustrate an apostolic visitation, that is, a visit to their congregations carried out under the authority of the Vicar of Christ on earth, to whom all religious are bound by the strongest bonds of loyalty and obedience? Who would ever imagine that consecrated religious would, in defiance of the Bishops as successors of the Apostles, publicly endorse legislation containing provisions which violate the natural moral law in its most fundamental tenet, the safeguarding and promoting of innocent and defenseless human life, and lacking provisions which safeguard the free exercise of the rightly formed consciences of health care workers?

We witness a growing tendency of certain consecrated religious to view themselves outside and above the Body of Christ, as a kind of parallel body which looks upon the Church with an autonomy which contradicts the very nature of their consecration. We have come a long way from the total loyalty to the Roman Pontiff, which was at the heart of the foundation of the Society of Jesus and of every religious congregation. Religious life lived in the heart of the Church and, for that reason, religious congregations are, by their very nature, united in total loyalty to the Roman Pontiff. It is, of course, an absurdity of the most tragic kind to have consecrated religious knowingly and obstinately acting against the moral law.

The spiritual harm done to the individual religious who are disobedient and also the grave scandal caused to the faithful and to people, in general, are of incalculable dimensions. What immense harm is being done to the witness of the Church at a time when that witness needs to be especially clear and courageous! What, for instance, are non-Catholics and non-Christians to think about the teaching of the Church, when they observe the open rebellion against her teaching by her members totally consecrated to uphold that same teaching?

The Church must be clear and strong about her teaching and discipline for the good of her members and, indeed, of all souls. Such a situation of rebellion against her teaching and discipline cannot be permitted to continue. The proper sanctions must be applied, in order to call back the religious in question to live the truth of their religious vocation and to repair the grave scandal which they have caused.

In this regard, I wish to conclude by appealing to members of institutes of the consecrated life to devote themselves anew, by prayer, sacrifice and apostolic engagement, to the fundamental and, in fact, irreplaceable, apostolates of Catholic education and Catholic health care. Over the past decades and, in a particularly shocking manner, over the past year or so, we have witnessed in our nation the betrayal of these apostolates to the degree they have forfeited their Catholic identity and are no longer, as they are meant to be, instruments of the new evangelization. For the “thirty pieces of silver” of secular acceptability and material stability, they are cooperating with the forces of the culture of death, the forces which are destroying countless human lives and will destroy us as a nation.

We celebrate, in these days, the victory of our Risen Lord over sin and everlasting death, the victory in which, by God’s grace, we all share. Christ did not achieve our eternal salvation by accommodating Himself to the culture in which He lived, to the agenda of the Roman Empire or the leaders of the Jewish people, but by remaining faithful and strong in the witness to the truth, the truth of His Father, the truth by which our world and we were created and are sustained in being. The dialogue of Our Lord with Pontius Pilate, as it is recorded in the Passion according to Saint John, provides a most fitting meditation for us, as we contemplate the question: What are we to do in the present crisis? I appeal to consecrated persons, in particular, to be a beacon of fidelity to truth in Christ, especially in the apostolates of Catholic education and Catholic health care.

Yes, the opposition to and even persecution of those who witness to the truth are fearsome. We, however, are called to share in the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Even as Christ alone is the salvation of the world, even so we can only serve the world by our total communion with Him, in doing the truth with love “to the end.” In fact, the world which seems so much opposed to the Church and her witness to the truth is hungering, to the point of starvation, for the unfailing witness of Catholics who are, in Father Hardon’s words, “real,” who are ready to be martyrs, if necessary, for what is true and good.

Finally, the United States of America bears a particularly heavy responsibility to the world in giving witness to the truth. As an Italian prelate observed to me, some months ago, our nation is still Christian, the battle against secularism has not yet been completely lost in the United States as it seemingly has been lost in Europe. Europe is looking to the United States to see that indeed the battle against secularism can be won.

I urge you, in particular, to assist the lay faithful, above all politicians and elected representatives, government officials, and ministers of justice who are Catholic, to give a coherent witness to the truth of the moral law, written by God into His creation and upon every human heart. Catholics are in positions of leadership in our nation to an extent that I would never have dreamed as I was growing up in the 1950s. The Vice President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, five justices of the Supreme Court, and some 140 or so Senators and Congressmen say that they are Catholics. It cannot be that Our Lord has given Catholics such positions of leadership, in order that they may betray the truth of the natural moral law, cooperate in the wholesale killing of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in the artificial generation and destruction of embryonic human life, in the violation of the integrity of the marital union, and in the denial of fundamental rights of conscience. On the other hand, what a force for the transformation of our nation they could be, if they would be faithful and strong in the safeguarding of the truth about the inviolable dignity of all human life, the integrity of the union of one man and one woman in marriage for the procreation of new human life, and the sanctity of the rightly formed conscience.

Do not doubt influence which you can have. Was not the Speaker of the House glowing in her report that so many religious Sisters were in support of her proposed health care plan? Was not a religious Sister one of the few recipients of a pen which the President of the United States used to sign the same health care plan into law? Now is the time for us all and, in particular, for consecrated persons to stand up for the truth and to call upon our fellow Catholics in leadership to do the same or to cease identifying themselves as Catholics.

In closing, I thank you, once again, for the honor of the Pro Fidelitate et Virtute Award, and for the fidelity and strength of the Institute on Religious Life and its members. I ask your prayers for me. Be assured that I pray for you daily.

May God bless you always!


The Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke
Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis
Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura

A Moment Of Grace

As I mentioned yesterday, I was blessed this past Saturday to be the guest of a friend of mine at the Annual Banquet of the Institute for Religious Life, held at the St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein, IL, near Chicago.

There was mass, a reception, and a banquet. The banquet featured good food and a good speaker.

Now, I've been to mass. This was not the most beautiful mass I've ever been to (that would probably have to be the All Souls' Mass at St. John Cantius with the full choir and orchestra performing Mozart's Requiem Mass I attended a few years' back). It was good food, but I've had better in my time. It was an exceptionally good speech, and yet I have even heard better speeches.

Still.

It was singular event in my memory. I felt entirely suffused with a sort of euphoric feeling that only grew over the course of the evening. I can only attribute it to the grace of God flowing throughout such a large gathering of vowed religious sisters and brothers, priests, bishops, seminarians, and devoted laypeople. It was a few grace-filled hours such as I have rarely, if ever experienced.

Mass was first. The Extraordinary Wife and I were running a tad late for mass, as we initially thought the mass was to be at nearby Marytown, rather than the seminary chapel, and so we went there first. We arrived at the right place just in time to hear the celebrant, Bishop Doran of Rockford, intoning "Gloria in excelsis deo".

The chapel is large, but it was packed. But by the end of the Gloria some nuns had scooted over to make room for us one behind the other.

The mass was in honor of Servant of God Fr. James Hardon, S.J., and so we listened Fr. James Kubicki, S.J. preached an excellent homily about Fr. Hardon and his teachings, and how we should apply them in our own lives.


The mass was concelebrated by more priests than I've ever seen. Among these were Archbishop Raymond Burke, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Tribinal of the Apostolic Signatura at the Vatican, and former Archbishop of St. Louis. I know it's not supposed to be important, but it was a special moment for me when I received communion from him.

After a brief reception, we went to our friend's table, where, as we approached, Archbishop Burke was chatting with one of our table-mates (we learned later that she is his cousin). Before he left, I was able to greet him and thank him for the work he has been doing. I told him briefly of my recent electoral effort, and he congratulated me and told me to keep up the fight. Another very special moment.

Dinner was wonderful. Served by the seminarians at the seminary, I thought to myself that this was a good moment to be glad that I have tried to cultivate a habit of courtesy to waiters, because it served me well that evening. And these seminarian-waiters, all in their clericals, were uniformly cheerful, solicitous and attentive. I found it completely humbling to waited on by men who will be priests of God.

And then the Archbishop spoke. I have already described my reaction to His Grace's speech. In the next post, I'll posting the complete text of his remarks.

I am so grateful to my friend for inviting me to enjoy this evening with her. It was an immersion in grace, and for the first time I begin to feel what the attraction might be for those who live under vows in religious communities.

Human Events Features Walsh/Bean Match-Up

John Gizzi, writing for Human Events, lists the Illinois 8th District as a "Match-up of the Week":

Democrats and Republicans alike in Illinois’s 8th District (suburban Chicago) are still wondering how on earth Joe Walsh—a one time inner-city Chicago teacher—ever defeated six opponents on a budget of $130,000 (“all small donations,” notes the candidate) to win the GOP primary to oppose three-term Democratic Rep. Melissa Bean?

“It was the Tea Party movement here—pure and simple,” says Walsh, who has never held elective office. “We have about 10-12 different Tea Party groups in and around Chicago and I spoke to each of them. They liked my message of cutting taxes, opposing government stimulus and bailout programs and opportunity.”

The 47-year-old Walsh recalled how “about 100 to 200 Tea Partiers provided ‘boots on the ground’ for me in the primary—going door-to-door, licking envelopes, making calls and driving supporters to the polls.”

Not only did it work but, as Walsh predicts, “after my opponent’s vote for the healthcare bill, the phones at our headquarters haven’t stopped ringing. We’ll have four to five times that number of volunteers by the fall!”

“Out of touch” is how University of Chicago graduate Walsh labels Bean (lifetime American Conservative Union rating: 30%), repeatedly noting that “she never held a single town hall meeting with her constituents before she voted for Obama’s healthcare plan. How can you vote on an issue that important if you don’t talk to your folks at home?” (Since the vote, Bean has held meetings, but they have been invitation-only.)

To underscore his point, Walsh is holding town hall meetings of his won focusing on alternatives to the recently enacted Obamacare. And, they're open to all, his supporters emphasize.

Although he has never held office, Joe Walsh has been around public policy for much of his life, having worked for the Heartland Institute and the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation. At a time when Tea Party candidates are portrayed in the media as prophets of gloom and “againsters,” Walsh preaches the gospel of hope and opportunity enunciated by his heroes Friedman and Jack Kemp.

“We can give people more opportunities by ending the estate tax, the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the capital gains tax—and then cutting the corporate tax in half,” he says without hesitation. “We can then give people more money, more security and more chances to make their own decisions.”

As an example, Walsh cites his own work as executive director of the Daniel Murphy Scholarship Fund, in which role he oversaw the awarding of 150 privately funded vouchers per year to permit 8th graders in the inner city to attend schools of their own choice.

In Bean’s last two trips to the polls, pundits usually concluded that she won because she was considered a moderate and candidates such as Joe Walsh considered “too conservative.”

“Not so in 2010,” says Walsh, “not after her votes on healthcare and stimulus packages. That’s why people here are scared. And that’s why a message of conservatism and hope resonates. This is the perfect storm.”

Liberal Hate

Another incident of liberals, while falsely calling conservatives violent, themselves turning violent (H/T: Ori):

A Republican activist and her boyfriend were savagely beaten in New Orleans on Friday for wearing Sarah Palin pins.

Free Republic reported:

Allee Bautsch, chief campaign fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and her boyfriend Joe Brown, were savagely beaten Friday night in New Orleans after leaving a Republican party fundraising dinner by a group of thugs who reportedly targeted the couple because they were wearing Sarah Palin pins.

Bautch’s leg was broken and Brown incurred a broken jaw and nose as well as a concussion.

The Hayride reports that a source who visited Bautsch at the hospital the day after the attack says they were told the couple was attacked for wearing Palin buttons:

Two people at the Brennan’s event have now confirmed that the protest had largely broken up by the time it ended, but we also understand from someone who visited Allee Bautsch in the hospital Saturday morning that she and Brown were followed and attacked expressly because they had Palin pins on (she heard one of the attackers say “Let’s get them, they have Palin pins on” – so the attack WAS politically motivated as its victims understood it. It was not a mugging, it was not an argument gone wrong and it was not a bar fight.

The story of a Republican and her boyfriend being viciously attacked for wearing Palin buttons has yet to make national headlines, unlike say, unfounded rumors of nasty words being said by Tea Party protesters. [Emphasis added.]

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin and others are reporting that they weren't wearing Palin pins. Which doesn't mean that the attack wasn't politcially motivated.

Archbishop Burke Hammers Liberal Religious

This past Saturday it was my very great privilege to be present at a mass, followed by a banquet, put on by the Institute on Religious Life.

I have now updated this post with some pictures, courtesy of Mike Wick at the IRL.

The mass was held at the chapel of the Mundelein Seminary, and celebrated by Rockford's Bishop Doran, the homilist was Fr. James Kubicki, S.J., and communion was distributed by Fr. Kubicki and Archbishop Raymond Burke.

That's right, you may be jealous. I received communion from Archbishop Burke.

As wonderful as that was, it was only the beginning of a very memorable evening. We enjoyed a delightful banquet, served by the seminarians. Present were far more than I could count of bishops, priests and religious brothers and sisters, an amazing variety of habits.

And then, Archbishop Burke delivered the keynote address.

After humbly expressing his gratitude at receiving the Institute's 2010 Pro Fidelitate et Gratute award, His Grace spent a few minutes reminiscing about the many religious communities he's worked with over his career.

And then, metaphorically, he pulled out a big hammer. At least that's how it seemed to me, although he never changed his tone of voice. But the words! The words.

Here's a sample, courtesy of my LCRTL co-blogger Bonnie:

"Who could imagine that consecrated religious, would openly and in defiance of the bishops, as successors of the apostles, publicly endorse legislation containing provisions, which violated the natural moral law in it's most fundamental tenets-the safeguarding and promoting of innocent and defenseless human life, and fail to safeguard the demands of the free exercise of conscience for health care workers," Archbishop Burke said.

"Whoever could have imagined that religious congregations of pontifical right, would openly organize to resist an attempt to frustrate an apostolic visitation, that is a visit to their congregations carried out under the authority of Christ on earth, to whom all religious are bound by the strongest bonds of loyalty and obedience," he said.

Archbishop Burke indicated that the attitude of sisters toward the visitation represents, "A growing tendency among certain consecrated religious, to view themselves outside and above the body of Christ, as a parallel institution looking in upon the Church with an autonomy which contradicts their very nature. Religious life lived in the heart of the Church, and for that reason religious congregations are by their very nature bound in strictest loyalty to the Roman pontiff. It is of course, an absurdity of the most tragic kind, to have consecrated religious obstinately acting against the moral law. The spiritual harm done to the individual religious, who are disobedient, and also the grave scandal caused to the faithful and people in general, are of incalculable dimensions."

There's more! Read it, link to it. Bookmark that blog!

Joe Walsh Press Release

Jobless Recovery? Only if Melissa Bean Gets Her Way

(Grayslake, IL)-- In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich offered a fairly pessimistic view of any potential recovery from what he referred to as "The Great Recession".

Since the start of the Great Recession in December 2007, the economy has shed 8.4 million jobs and failed to create another 2.7 million required by an ever-larger pool of potential workers. That leaves us more than 11 million jobs behind. (The number is worse if you include everyone working part-time who'd rather it be full-time, those working full-time at fewer hours, and people who are overqualified for the jobs they're in.) This means even if we enjoy a vigorous recovery that produces, say, 300,000 net new jobs a month, we could be looking at five to eight years before catching up to where we were before the recession began.

Reich is a demand-side economist so he misunderstands the source of the problem and suggests the wrong remedies, but he correctly identifies the very real challenge: Americans, Illinoisans, and 8th district families need jobs and expanded economic opportunities.

Our region is beset with 12%+ unemployment because of bad policy choices.

Those bad choices have been made by politicians like Rep. Melissa Bean who either don't understand economics or are more concerned with propping up public sector unions than rewarding work and investment and productive risk-taking behavior by small businesses-in other words, the lifeblood of job creation.

Rep. Bean voted for Obamacare the first time. Earlier this year, the Illinois Policy Institute released a study estimating the federal takeover of health care would cost Illinois 169,000 jobs.

Rep. Bean knew or should have known that the bill would add tens of millions of dollars in cost to the bottom lines of major Illinois employers including Caterpillar, John Deere and Illinois Tool Works-which is precisely what occurred.

Rep. Bean responded to this foreboding information by turning around and voting against her district and for Obamacare a second time.

Cap-and-trade, which Bean voted for the first time appears likely to be resurrected for a second go-around. The proposed cap-and-trade legislation would permanently decimate the manufacturing and energy sectors in Illinois, increasing energy costs for consumers and driving employers out of Illinois and, frankly, out of America all together. Will Melissa Bean vote for cap-and-trade a second time? Don't ask her. If you want to know how Melissa Bean will vote, ask Rahm Emanuel.

Wait, there's more. In addition to the federal takeover of health care and the malaise-making cap-and-trade legislation, Bean voted for an $875 billion so-called "stimulus" plan that did little more than prop up public sector unions and insulate government from the pain being experienced in the private sector.

That's why, as Reich predicts, "What's likely to slow the jobs recovery most, however, is the indubitable reality that many of the jobs that have been lost will never return."

Jobs aren't coming back to Illinois when we have Congressmen like Melissa Bean punishing small businesses to finance big government and voting for policies that outsource jobs overseas.

Joe Walsh understands the economics of recovery and he knows how to create jobs.

Walsh would reduce the tax and regulatory burdens on small businesses by: (1) making the 2001 and 2003 federal income tax cuts permanent; (2) eliminating the federal estate tax; (3) eliminating the amount; (4) reducing the capital gains tax (something even Democrat President Bill Clinton understood would spur capital formation and job creation).


Walsh also recognizes we need to reign in profligate Washington spending that crowds out private sector investment by: (1) eliminating earmarks; (2) eliminating massive unfunded entitlements passed by the federal government on to state and local governments; (3) ending bailouts of politically connected companies; (4) ending false "stimulus" packages that protect public sector unions at the expense of private sector job creation.

If you like the course our state and our nation are on, then you have Melissa Bean to thank.

If, however, you think we need to chart a new policy course, then you need to thank Melissa Bean for her service and relieve her of her duties on November 2.

The numbers don't lie. Families in the 8th district simply cannot afford Melissa Bean in Congress.

Just One Mom

Cedra Crenshaw for Illinois State Senate

I had the pleasure of meeting this lady at a seminar for training activists and candidates hosted by American Majority last September, when I was a candidate for State Rep. We posed for Lynn Thomas to take a picture of me with Fran Eaton of Illinois Review, Cedra, and State Rep. candidate Tom Morrison. I had met Tom and Fran before and since, but it was the only time I've met Cedra. I was very impressed with her.

Tom went on to win his primary for state rep; I lost mine, but did win a contested race for precinct committeeman, and Cedra was also elected as a precinct committeeman.

But now, faced with a pro-abort, big-spending Democrat state senator running unopposed for re-election in her district, Cedra has stepped up to oppose him.

I get this. It's outrageous that an ordinary person like her -- and like me before her -- has to be the one to step up and do this sort of thing. But as John Adams said, if good people don't serve in public office, who does that leave?

Cedra Crenshaw is the kind of good people John Adams was talking about, and this video captures why I was so impressed with her (H/T: Illinois Review):

Still More Liberal Liars

Infiltrating the Tea Parties!

This just made me made when I saw it in the paper this morning:

Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, homophobic and moronic.

Which clearly implies an admission that they are none of those things.

Jason Levin, creator of www.crashtheteaparty.org, said Monday the group has 65 leaders in major cities across the country who are trying to recruit members to infiltrate tea party events for April 15th tax filing day, when tea party groups across the country are planning to gather and protest high taxes.

"Every time we have someone on camera saying that Barack Obama isn't an American citizen, we want someone sitting next to him saying, 'That's right, he's an alien from outer space!'" Levin said.

Tea party members said the backlash comes from ignorance.

"They can't actually debate our message and that's their problem," said Bob MacGuffie, a Connecticut organizer for Right Principles, a tea party group that also has members in New York and New Jersey.

The tea party movement generally unites on the fiscally conservative principles of small government, lower taxes and less spending. Beyond that the ideology of the people involved tends to vary dramatically.

In simple point of fact, the vast majority of tea party activists are also socially conservative.

Levin says they want to exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them.

"Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not," Levin said. "Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely."

Can any of my liberal readers defend this sort of evidence-manufacturing? "We think it's so, and therefore we're justified to deceive others to make it appear so!"

The site manifesto says they want to dismantle the Tea Party by nonviolent means. "We have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies," the site said.

Another tea party organizer said the attempt to destroy the movement was evidence its message is resonating.

"We've been ignored, we've been ridiculed. Well, now they're coming after us," said Judy Pepenella, a co-coordinator for the New York State Tea Party. "Gandhi's quote is one we understand: 'First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.'" [Emphasis added.]

My bloggin' buddy Cao (pronounced like "key") has more here, and so does Michelle Malkin.

I won't be at a Tea Party this Thursday, gotta stay at the office and work. So you go if you can, and I promise you'll have a great time. In the local area, look for Tea Parties in Chicago, Palatine, and Crystal Lake. Tell Adam Andrejewski and Joe Walsh that Paul Mitchell said hello! And by the way, if you happen to see my friends Mother Patrick, Sister John, and Sister Bernard, give them a special hello from me!

More Pro-Abortion LIes

We already know that the entirety of the pro-abortion position is based on lies, wholesale and retail, beginning with the false assertion in the Roe v. Wade decision that we don't know when life begins, all the way down to the retail lies this "nurse" provides this young woman, "Sara" in urging her to seek an abortion.

Don't take my word for it, see for yourself:



(H/T: Reflections of a Paralytic)

(Cross-posted from Lake County Right to Life blog, where I am now a member of the Board.)