Thieves

Thursday, November 10, AD 2011

As the father of an autistic son who my wife and I love more than our lives, and who we will be caring for during the rest of our lives, I have one word to describe the activities of the Service Employees International Union as detailed in the following story from the Washington Examiner:  Despicable.

 

If you’re a parent who accepts Medicaid payments from the State of Michigan to help support your mentally-disabled adult children,  you qualify as a state employee for the purposes of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They can now claim and receive a portion of your Medicaid in the form of union dues.

 

Robert and Patricia Haynes live in Michigan with their two adult children, who have cerebral palsy. The state government provides the family with insurance through Medicaid, but also treats them as caregivers. For the SEIU, this makes them public employees and thus members of the union, which receives $30 out of the family’s monthly Medicaid subsidy. The Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) deducts union dues on behalf of SEIU.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Thieves

  • Michigan is among the worst of the progressivist, nannyish, union-dominated states. You may recall that some union, it may have been the SEIU, actuallly had a law passed allowing them to take money from home-based child-care providers here. (Nation-wide conservative outrage and the influx of Republicans in the ’10 elections has rendered the law nugatory, but it seems to be on the books still.) Unions are so entrenched here that new Republican majories in both houses and a Rep. Gov. haven’t made a bit of difference. (This, by the way, is what will happen nationally with a Romney victory–it will be meaningless.) Realize also that state employee unions use involunntarily collected funds from state-paid employees to lobby for increased state-employee pay so that they may collect more lobbying funds to lobby etc.

  • I despise unions, also, Donald. My story is entirely different than yours, however. When I got out of the US Submarine Service, I went to work at a commercial pressurized water reactor as a union I&C technician. One incident in particular convinced me to get out of the union. Like all light water reactors, we had an acoustical monitoring system used to detect loose parts in the reactor coolant system during operation at power. Even very small loose parts (tiny nylon springs, almost mircoscopic washers, etc.) can be dangerous because if they get past the debris strainers at the bottom of the fuel assembly rods, they can impact the soft zircalloy metal that keeps the fuel pins intact. After repeated vibrations, the zircalloy can undergo what’s called debris fretting, and the fuel pins could be exposed to the reactor coolant. Of course that would result in the release of fission products directly into the reactor coolant system, and that is not a good thing. The US NRC takes a very dim view of failed fuel elements, because that means that the first barrier to fission product release [ (1) fuel rod, (2) reactor coolant piping, and (3) reactor containment ] has been degraded. Usually when that happens, adjacent control rods have to be inserted to suppress neutron flux in the area so that the fissions in the affected fuel rod will be stopped, but that messes up thermal neutron flux profile across the core, and a whole set of other effects happen. Sometimes a complete shutdown is required and the defective fuel assembly has to be removed. That costs a million dollars a day to do, and it is by no means a quick process.

    So what does that all have to do with unions? When, as an I&C technician, I was responsible for calibrating the system that would detect debris in the reactor coolant system and allow us to take corrective action before that debris might cause a fuel element failure. There is a Regulatory Guide on all this – RG-1.133:

    http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0037/ML003740137.pdf

    Unfortunately we had an old analog system that we used for this purpose, and we had no calibration procedure to make certain the system (we called in the metal impact monitoring system or MIMS) was working right. So I figured out how the system worked (having been a Navy nuke, I was used to taking things apart and putting them back together again, and then writing a procedure to reflect what I had done). I then wrote the procedure that the aforementioned Regulatory Guide required and turned it into management.

    The union shop steward confronted me with what I had done, yelling at me that I was costing them union jobs and overtime. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Overtime was more important to this guy than having a correctly written procedure to calibrate a system that we would use to detect impending fuel element failures and prevent an unnecessary plant shutdown. This would save the company millions (and keep the publc safe – duh!). At that point I made up my mind to get the heck out of the union. I was successful within a year or so of that decision and never again have I had to work in any union, thanks be to God.

    I could tell you many other stories – union techs waiting till 3 pm quitting time to tell us there was a problem, and they did it deliberately to get the overtime. After all, at a nuke plant problems have to be addressed post-haste. Another example – engineers at a sister nuke plant voted in the union. When I went to teach them, if the class or the test lasted even one minute past their normal quitting time, they would just walk out. No responsibility. No accountability.

    I utterly despise unionism, liberalism, progressivism and democracy – two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. I now work in a company where there are no union techs, and if we have to work an hour or two past quitting time to get the darn job done, then we do. Sure, we complain, but we choose to serve our customer and have a good reputation. Then our boss gives us compensatory time off. We don’t need unions. Being nuclear professionals, we are paid very well (you, John Q. Public, do the paying in your electric bill), and as a result we are expected to behave as adults. I realize nowadays that’s a unique concept.

  • A push was made a couple of years ago, I believe, by SEIU to unionize home care assistants in Illinois but it failed, mainly because of opposition from those who were serving as Medicaid supported caregivers for their own family members.

    It is stuff like this that makes me wonder what to do with my own child, who is autistic. I feel like it would be wrong to rely upon the state or federal government to care for her, particularly when it involves cooperation with corrupt entities such as this, but since my husband and I are not going to live forever and she has no siblings or other relatives close to her age, what are we to do?

  • We parents of autistic kids Elaine, and other disabled kids, will have to set up our own support systems to help all of our kids after we are gone. My autistic son’s twin brother, a very dependable young man, will carry on after we are gone, but I can understand that many parents are not as fortunate as we are, and we will all need to work together to resolve this problem for everyone.

  • Yes, it was in MI that the home based day care businesses were unionized by stealth, although I think that has finally ended. The legislature dealt with the home health care worker unionization by defunding whatever department it was that was upholding it…to no avail. Some Repub senator (a physician by the way) out of the Saginaw area has been doing all he can to keep the home health care worker union scam going. http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/15943

    The unions are also trying to unionzie the student employees of Michigan U in Ann Arbor–not the ones in the school cafeteria, but the grad assistances. They tried that many moons back and failed. This time it looks like they might fail again, but YNK.

USCCB Scandal Deepens, U.S. Bishops Remain Silent

Thursday, February 4, AD 2010

[Update at the bottom of this post]

The scandal that has engulfed the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) shows no sign in abating.

Today we learn even more incriminating facts that continue to tarnish the image of the USCCB.

In the latest RealCatholicTV.com program Michael Voris explains the deep entanglement of Democratic Party and anti-Catholic operatives that hold high positions within the USCCB.

Continue reading...

67 Responses to USCCB Scandal Deepens, U.S. Bishops Remain Silent

  • Pingback: Res et Explicatio for AD 2-4-2010 « The American Catholic
  • All this sounds like the attitude of the bishops about the sex scandals. “Don’t confirm; don’t deny. Maybe it will all go away”.

    The road to hell is indeed paved with the skulls of bishops.

  • Well, it will only make them look even worse.

    With the new media, ie, blogs, twitter, facebook, etc, the news of their lack of action will spread like wildfire.

    It’ll be interesting to see how much tap-dancing will occur and who will do the tap-dancing.

  • I guess I’m a little perplexed as to how this is in some sense a current or deepening “scandal”. It doesn’t take much dealing with most diocese with large national Catholic organizations (with the exception of some of the newer, more orthodox ones) or with the USCCB to find that a lot of their employees are left leaning politically and progressive leaning in regards to theology and liturgy. If anything, this was more pronounced 10-20 years ago than it is now.

    I think it’s generally been bad for the Church, and we’re suffered as a result, but if anything it’s a bad scene we’re gradually coming out of (it takes a long time to turn over employment) rather than a new breaking scandal of some sort.

  • It’s probably perception more than anything.

    Many of us maybe never bothered to think much, if anything, about the USCCB.

    Then when they got a bit higher visibility when they actively involved themselves with ObamaCare more Catholics took notice.

    Over time as Catholics began to look into the USCCB, what you may call something that has been there for awhile, to us is scandalous.

    So there it is.

    You probably were fortunate enough to be raised a solid Catholic as a child, then progressed to a fine Catholic university immersing yourself even more in Catholic culture. All the while you were already aware of the problems with the USCCB since age 7.

    Me, and many others like me, returned to our faith through various forms. So many of us are behind the loop, so to speak, of the many warts and issues involved in the Catholic Church in America.

    So when many of use “reverts” or “converts” find scandalous information such as an openly professed lesbian or a woman priest advocate working in high profile positions in the USCCB, we are scandalized by this.

    So those are the perceptions.

    The attitude of “well it’s always been there and besides it was worse 10-20 years ago” is understandable.

    But to me and many others its scandalous. 😐

  • Except the problem is: this report is filled with lies, misrepresentation, and logical fallacies. It does no one any good to be scandal mongers and gossipers using false information — though it seems it is all for politics (which is why Voris acting like an authority also suggests, falsely, anyone who said a Catholic could vote for Obama was wrong).

    Want to see the kind of error? Well, it is simple: Mary Kay Henry was NOT given a position by the USCCB. She was brought into talks with people representing different labor groups, and represented one such labor group. In other words, it would be like someone condemning Pope Benedict for his dialogue with Islam and saying “there is something wrong with the Vatican, it is promoting Islam.”

  • Henry K.,

    You made a lot of accusations but you haven’t offered any evidence to back any of it up.

    I respect your knowledge in your fields of study, but where is the evidence of what you propose?

  • Tito

    Voris makes all kinds of accusations and claims, and you never ask him to back it up; you just upload and attack. You never look to the sources yourself. But you want source? Ok.

    http://vox-nova.com/2010/01/29/virtual-polemical-videos-not-real-catholic-tv/

    Go to that thread. Read the post. See the logical fallacies being exposed. Then read the commentary thread. In it you will see this linked: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/usccb_clarifies_involvement_with_controversial_expert/

    And what it says is clear:

    Washington D.C., Dec 7, 2009 / 05:44 pm (CNA).- On Monday, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, media director for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops spoke with CNA, clarifying the role of Service Employees Union executive and gay rights activist Mary Kay Henry with the bishops’ conference.

    Sr. Walsh noted that in the past, Mary Kay Henry was chosen by the unions to take part in a dialogue with the USCCB but left in 2006.

    She was not appointed by the bishops, Sr. Walsh explained.

    So there you go, an example of distortion going on. Sure, she talked with the USCCB representing unions. Jesus, and the Catholic Church, has always had dialogue with people in such roles before; will anyone condemn Pope St Gregory the Great for meeting with Atilla the Hun? Using the loopy logic in this video, Pope St Gregory the Great was promoting Atilla’s rampage!

  • Henry K.,

    Good catch on the CNA article.

    I’ll send that link over to Mr. Voris so he can avoid making that mistake.

    (my article didn’t make that connection)

    And for your VN posting, very interesting reading.

    I’m not up to speed in many of the subjects you touch upon, but I’ll be rereading it again. Every little bit helps!

  • As I mentioned in the thread about the CCHD, the underlying theme behind these criticisms is a deep hostility toward not only the USCCB, but the bishops themselves. In this thread, we have read: “The road to hell is indeed paved with the skulls of bishops.” Tito has said that he has been scandalized – i.e., tempted to lose faith.

    Henry is right – these accusations fall apart upon further research. Catholics are being told to doubt the authenticity of the bishops’ teaching and governing office. Moreover, we are being told to question their very sincerity and faith. This is the scandal we should be afraid of.

  • When Bishops have dialogue with lesbians and gays and other members of the legions of hell, liberal Catholics say it’s a scandal to criticize the Bishops.

    When Bishops take false Catholics like Representative Patrick Kennedy on the carpet for open apostasy, liberal Catholics say it’s a scandal the Bishops are using the Communion Rail politically.

    No, folks, the best liberal is the repentent liberal, and failing that, a defeated, muzzled and emasculated liberal. The only dialogue we should have with them is this: “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

    P.S., I’ll trust Michael Voris before I’ll trust any liberal Democrat.

  • PS, Mary Kay Henry should re-read what 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states (NIV):

    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    So why are we having dialogue with the wicked? Jesus didn’t have dialogue with them. He preached the Gospel of repentance to them. We ought to do the same.

  • Jesus didn’t have dialogue with the wicked? The Jews certainly thought he did — he was dining with sinners, indeed, drunkards; he was hanging out with the Samaritans; and he said nothing about the abuse of Roman society upon the Jews, yet affirming the faith of a non-Jewish Centurion (are you going to say he was without sin)?

    And that’s just the start of the matter.

  • Mary Ann Walsh did not participate in a women’s “ordination” ceremony. After one such event, the participants marched to where the bishops were meeting. When they didn’t go away, she appeared, met with them, received their rose bouquet, and they left. It’s the kind of thing a media relations person does.

    And her statement that a person could vote for Obama (not that they should – I certainly didn’t) matched up pretty well with an interpretation of Faithful Citizenship that many orthodox bishops accept. Of course, when you’re part of the neo-Donatist movement that thinks Cardinal George and Archbishop Wuerhl are closet leftists, none of this will satisfy you.

  • Zak,

    I caught it right before you posted your comment.

    I corrected my post to reflect this fact.

  • Henry,
    I agree with the points you’re making – one factual issue: it was Leo the Great, not Gregory the Great, who met with Atilla.

  • I agree with both Paul P. and Henry K.

    Whether it was dialogue or preaching, Jesus certainly spent time with sinners, but not to reaffirm their sinfulness but to show them the light.

  • Zak

    Oops — you are right (though I know this, I often do this same mistake when typing, for some reason — I have a few other lapses where my fingers go into automatic writing mode — an interesting phenomena and I expect many of us have examples of this)

  • Another example of what is going on: Voris says people in the hallways are found supporting Obama’s policies. Ok.

    The question is: which policies? All of them? Some of them? A couple of them? But yet by saying it in this way, it’s easy to create a false picture, and that is exactly the kind of strategy which is done for propaganda not for the exploration of truth.

  • Well hopefully they’re not supporting this:

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60893

  • I think ultimately though one needs to see that the USCCB is a political organization in addition to a religious organization. That’s fine as long as people realize it is and that it will have the problems of any organization that is political. I think Henry has pointed out such problems with some pro-life organizations.

  • Well I’m pretty sure that the USCCB is not a political organization in any legal, tax or regulatory sense of the term. But any tax exempt group is permitted (within certain constraints) to work to advance their charitable agenda via supporting and opposing relevant legislation, though not supporting or opposing political candidates. The USCCB has a reputation for generally supporting the liberal approaches to addressing Catholic concerns. To the extent this is true, it is not especially scandalous, but it may be imprudent. My guess is that the policy preferences expressed by the USCCB are more representative of its staffers than the bishops, and that neither the bishops nor the staffers are especially gifted at public policy, but probably think they are.

  • I think John Carr is one of the most thoughtful Catholics in America–and certainly one of the best spokesmen for Catholic social teaching. And I find it more than a little dismaying that a group of self-anointed REAL CATHOLICS are spending so much energy trying to undermine the work of the bishops of this country. This is not just unhelpful; it’s diabolical.

  • Mike,

    There is political and there is political. I think Henry points out some of the foibles of pro-life conservative organizations that are tax exempt also.

    I don’t think the USCCB generally supports liberal approaches I think it pretty much always does. Again understanding the experts that advise the body may give understanding to why they do.

  • Ron Ch.,

    Thoughtful as in promoting that more innocent children be killed?

    Yeah, and THAT’S not diabolical.

  • Phillip,
    I have not read Henry’s expose on the foibles of “pro-life conservative” organizations, but if the problem is that they are willing to support candidates who are imperfect on life issues in order to prevent the election of candidates who are abortion enthusiasts, ok, but I don’t see that as a foible. On the other hand, if they are favoring pro-choice candidates over pro-life candidates because they former are otherwise considered more conservative than the latter, then that would be worse than a foible — and I’d really appreciate knowing more about it.

  • Tito, what you are doing here is slanderous–to a good man and to the bishops whom he serves as a spokesperson. Do you happen to KNOW John Carr? Have you ever heard him talk about abortion? Do you suppose his work for peace/justice . . . and the work of our bishops through the USCCB to uplift the poor . . . has nothing at all to do with fostering respect for human life? For that matter, do you recognize any connection whatsoever between poverty/racism and abortion, or do you think it is purely coincidental that poor minority women patronize the killing clinics at such a disproportionate rate?

    Sorry, fella, John Carr is a REAL Catholic, not some Pharisee with video blog, a big mouth, and way too much time on his hands.

  • Ron Ch.,

    I’m not sure what blog you are reading, but I have never said anything such about John Carr.

    Joe H. posted a video that stated John Carr has been with an organization that promotes abortion for decades. I don’t see how you got your conclusions from this, so I’ll just chalk it up to your liberal-tainted glasses getting the better of your imagination.

    Get a hold of yourself brother.

  • Some other concerns about the CCC that I’m sure can be disproved:

    http://www.catholicadvocate.com/?tag=john-carr

  • Phillip and Ron Ch.,

    The evidence is devastating concerning the cooperation in evil that John Carr has led and been involved in.

  • American Catholic began as a healthy alternative to the consistently left-leaning Vox Nova. It seems to be reinventing itself in the spirit of the old Wanderer. That is a terrible shame, and shame on anyone here–and in the holier-than-God “orthodox” blogosphere–who casts aspersion on a man who has faithfully served the Church in the United States and its bishops for many years.

  • No, what this post is doing is highlighting a story. If any of the facts are mistaken Ron tell us precisely what facts are wrong. The USCCB has a history of allowing its staffers to associate the USCCB with some pretty unsavory groups that promote positions directly contrary to Church teaching. The USCCB needs to address this story directly and not simply play a game of hear no evil, speak no evil and see no evil.

  • Donald, a lot of the ‘facts’ have been debunked, and one glaring piece of slander removed (the picture of Sister Mary Ann Walsh). The more you dig into this, the more you see that a mountain is being made out of a molehill.

  • That sounds intereting. I can’t believe it. gochristian shoes

  • I have to say, I don’t find this video or the accusations very substantial. Everyone is entitled to their polemics, of course, and so I can see why some anti-Democrat Catholics enjoy this type of stuff. But, as Mike Petrik says above, some members of the USCCB preferring policies favored by the Democratic party to advance the common good “is not especially scandalous, but it may be imprudent.”

    Also, on a personal note, I’m shocked, shocked that anyone could write an article suggesting it was possible for Catholics to vote for Obama. That Sister Mary Ann Walsh must be way out there.

    To be clear, I think legitimate criticisms can be made of the USCCB. But these types of videos blend and muddle legitimate concerns with partisan attacks in a way that I think is unhelpful. The problem with the Vortex, as I see it, is that it isolates and absolutizes one of many possible approaches to serving the common good, and regards any other approach as illegitimate. It seems to me that it instrumentalizes the Faith in the service of a conservative political polemic, and in the process does a disservice to the Faith and to the USCCB.

  • The USCCB needs to address this story directly and not simply play a game of hear no evil, speak no evil and see no evil.

    I don’t really see what you’re talking about. These accusations are pretty small beer in the grand scheme of things, and, as Darwin notes, there is nothing new in there. In the 1980’s, sure, the USCCB was basically co-opted by Democratic partisans. But the Vortex is basically the mirror image of it from the right; they are not raising any new questions. Most of these issues have already been addressed, are matters for prudential judgment where reasonable people can differ, and/or are inaccurate to begin with.

  • I’ll spell it our for you John Henry. They should explain why they were shoveling money into an organization that one of their staffers served as the head of. Can they even spell “conflict of interest”? Rather than attacking the people who are bringing this to light they should be ramping up their own investigation. They might also wish to explain why Carr omitted noting his involvement with the CCC from his USCCB bio. They might also explain why Tom Chabolla, associate director of CCHD programs until 2008, and who worked under Carr, took Carr’s place on the CCC board after Carr left, during a time period when the CCC became involved in pro-abortion advocacy, and whether Chabolla and Carr maintained contacts about the CCC. Chabolla since leaving the CCHD is now assistant to the President of the Service Employees International Union. Finally, perhaps they can explain why, when this all came to light, the first reaction from the CCHD was to scrub their website of all mention of ties with the CCC. This story is not going away.

  • Don,

    I get conflict of interest issue; and I get that the CCHD has had very poor oversight. I think the CCHD should be either scrapped or completely overhauled, and I’m in favor of more transparency. But I don’t think the video covers these issues very well.

    My issue is that I think the Vortex (and, really, couldn’t they find a better name?) is advancing a partisan agenda, rather than simply voicing legitimate concerns about conflict of interest or the funding of groups whose values conflict with those of the Church. For instance, the video keeps repeating the word ‘Democrat’ or ‘Democractic’ as if it’s an epithet. And some of the charges in the video are just ridiculous (implying that making the case that Catholics could have voted for Obama should disqualify someone from working for the USCCB?). In other words, as I said above, the video “blends and muddles legitimate concerns with partisan attacks in a way that I think is unhelpful.”

  • Clearly many improvements or even an overhaul of the program needs to take place. Attacking the structures of sin is a laudable activity with a positive goal. However, the problem with many (most?) secular groups that appear to be doing that sort of work is that they’re almost always trying to exchange one structure of sin for another. They are typically shells for particular political parties or have too closely aligned themselves to party interests.

    Therein lies part of the danger for third party benefactors like the USCCB. It’s one thing to work with a secular org for a shared interest even though they may not share all interests, it’s another to thing to support that org directly. What happens is that you run the real risk of becoming an integral part of a structure of sin.

    All that said, I think those ads are poorly done in substance. They smack of overblown righteous indignation, take many intellectual shortcuts, argue by assertion, use charged words that are usually quite subjective, makes unwarranted assumptions, etc. Frankly, I can’t see any difference in what is being done here than what some authentic Catholic anti-american-calvinist crusaders do. The only difference is what side of the fence their sitting on.

  • I’m not touching this story with a 39-and-a-half-foot pole. Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the reporting (and I have my doubts), the blatant guilt-by-association-and-innuendo style of the reporting left me feeling dirty after watching.

    “… I’m shocked, shocked that anyone could write an article suggesting that it was possible for Catholics to vote for Obama. That Sister Mary Ann Walsh must be way out there.”

    Yeah, tell me about it. I must be a stark-raving lefty.

  • Rick,

    Right. There are problems on both sides of the fence. There are pro-life pharisees. There are also social justice pharisees.

    Just hard to recognize one’s own as such sometimes.

  • Great comments and insights.

    About the overhaul of the CCHD – they have two overall programs, one focusing on political activity, the other focusing on business activity. The business grants are amazing – helping poor people build skills and worker-owned businesses. The political grants are a lot more tricky – often involving people with liberal mindsets – and I agree that it needs to be overhauled.

  • Pingback: My take on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development controversy « CatholicVoteAction.org
  • Henry K, for your insights on what the Bishops knew and didn’t know, you are probably right. For your history on St. Gregory the Great meeting Atilla the Hun, you are at least a century off. It was St. Leo the Great in 451 who met with Atilla, thus delaying the destruction of Rome by 25 years……historical footnote worth noting….

  • Nate W., John Henry, Ron Ch., Jay Anderson, et al,

    You guys are building straw men arguments by attacking the messenger.

    By shining the light on the problem, you guys go ahead and savage the reputation of those doing the reporting and you all should be ashamed of yourselves.

    Granted that Mr. Voris *may* have gone over the top in some of his analysis, especially the innuendos to being a “Democrat”, but the basic story is this, the USCCB has been dealing with anti-catholic organizations for years. Just because they’ve done it in the past, doesn’t allow them a free pass, such as John Henry’s comment, ‘small potatoes’.

    If the USCCB wants to be taken more seriously they need to get their ‘allegedly’ devout Catholics like John Carr OUT of pro-abortion organizations and place Catholics without, as Jay says, a ‘conflict of interest’.

    Thank you for your comments, I’m learning a lot on how to report such news.

  • Dennis

    Yes, that was established above about Gregory/Leo. Often my fingers will mix them up when typing — but the point behind it still stands. Thankfully, I know I’m not impeccable nor infallible!

  • Tito, the guys you reference have no reason to be ashamed of themselves, anymore than does anyone who notes that other journalists & commentators occasionally make generalizations and inaccurate statements.

  • Chris,

    There is no evidence of inaccuracy.

    If Nate could name what was inaccurate instead of making things up I can see your point.

    On the rest, I understand what you’re saying.

  • Pingback: The Many Scandals of the USCCB « The American Catholic
  • The liberal agenda and left-leaning “Catholics” is one reason, among others, that I dropped out of RCIA and chose not to convert to the RCC. The USCCB is only one of the problems. Out-of-control renegade priests can feel real comfy in many a parish in these United States.

    Face it, the liberals are an energetic, visible force within the Roman Catholic Church and they are not going away. They have become a cancer that is multiplying at an exponential rate. Michael Voris can’t stop it. EWTN can’t stop it. AveMaria Radio can’t stop it. Just look at the mess out in California, with all pro-gay, pro-choice bishops. They’re quite happy, comfy, and content behind encased in their ivory towers. And the disease has spread eastward to parishes in the Midwest, Florida, and the Northeast.

    Where’s all this “unity” that I was told existed in the “one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic” Church? It ain’t there! The current RCC barely resembles the RCC of 100 yrs. ago. So continue to have your “CHURCH” but don’t call it “holy” or “Catholic” or “Apostolic.” Those who have eyes to see will see. Those who wish to continue living in “LaLa Land” will continue to wear blinders.

  • The liberal agenda and left-leaning “Catholics” is one reason, among others, that I dropped out of RCIA and chose not to convert to the RCC. The USCCB is only one of the problems. Out-of-control renegade priests along with their progressive laity can feel real comfy in many a parish in these United States.

    Face it, the liberals are an energetic, visible force within the Roman Catholic Church and they are not going away. They have become a cancer that is multiplying at an exponential rate. Michael Voris can’t stop it. EWTN can’t stop it. AveMaria Radio can’t stop it. Just look at the mess out in California, with all pro-gay, pro-choice bishops. They’re quite happy, comfy, and content encased in their ivory towers. And the disease has spread eastward to parishes in the Midwest, Florida, and the Northeast.

    Where’s all this “unity” that I was told existed in the “one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic” Church? It ain’t there! The current RCC barely resembles the RCC of 100 yrs. ago. So continue to have your “CHURCH” but don’t call it “holy” or “Catholic” or “Apostolic.” Those who have eyes to see will see. Those who wish to continue living in “LaLa Land” will continue to wear blinders.

  • Darlene

    So basically, you are telling me you are still a Protestant, and the reason why you didn’t convert is because you are a Protestant? Big deal.

  • Pingback: Fr. Frank Pavone Defends John Carr of the USCCB « The American Catholic
  • Henry,

    No, I am not a Protestant. It’s easy to assume things in a forum like this where face-to-face, in person dialogue is absent.

    Protestant evangelicalism has many problems, one of which is that they (for the most part) ignore the creeds and councils of the first millenia.

    So, I came to the conclusion that Protestantism is a schism from a schism and will continue to split and divide. Sola Scriptura is not a unifying force within Protestantism, but a disunifying force. Hope that clarifies things.

    As far as my emphatic, blunt post, I understand that it will offend Roman Catholics. Offending was not my intent. With that said, the priest with whom I had counsel was very kind, long-suffering, and understanding. Even taking into consideration my original comments, I do not judge the salvation of individual Catholics. That is God’s business.

    If I have sinned in being so bold, forgive me.

  • The USCCB website says that Mary Kay Henry was appointed to a USCCB subcommittee and the USCCB accepted the subcommittee’s findings. Why would the USCCB look to anti-Catholic “experts” like Mary Kay Henry for advice in developing policy?

    Answer: For the same reason they invited Father Thomas Reese and Diana Hayes to speak at their conference last week-end.

    Jesus had something to say about this: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

  • Michael Voris is certainly human, and on rare occasions he may get his facts wrong, but taken as a whole, there is a mountain of evidence against the USCCB. A favorite liberal trick is to suggest that one flaw in the evidence damns all the evidence. I’m not fooled.

  • Nothing has been said here. Absolutely nothing.

    All of you are defending nothing and have nothing concrete to say about anything.

    The fact is you can not vote for a man who kills babies, I’d like to see you explain that when you come face to face with your creator. Can’t do it.

    The fact is, you can not give money to death programs from unsuspecting pew sitters – its illegal as well as totally against what Jesus commanded of us.

    Who cares who supports John Carr? It’s irrelevant? If the man has put any support into anti-God programs he is out.

    The Jews (many) did it wrong and so are the Catholics (many). You don’t reject the sacraments because the gatekeepers are corrupt. God said to St. Teresa of Avila “I put myself in the hands of thy enemies for your sake!” If you reject the commandments and the working of the Holy Spirit in the Church through those sacraments – then you hold man up as God.

    Don’t give money if you don’t know where the money is going. Put your money in areas you know are deserving of it. Don’t vote for the slaughter of innocence. Don’t keep quite when a priest is an idiot or a Bishop is a nutcase. Fight – and stop trying to defend your need for comfort.

    Newsflash the Church has the enemies within. Fight it – get them out – run them out of town but stop trying to give yourself an excuse to take a nap.

  • My dealings with the USCCB and the two of the organizations it sponsors and funds leads me to believe this organization is more a socialist political group than people working to live up to the Gospels. Obama and far too many of the Democrats in office are sociast with a socialist agenda. I fear that some of the Bishops may have been sucked into the false notion that socialism serves the needs of the poor. SOcialism brings the entire society down to the level of the laziest. Socialism depleats to will and ability of the society to provide for all.

  • WayneK,

    It is quite apparent in Europe today. France is turning into an economic basket case with gov’t unions striking each day preventing Sarkozy from instituting well needed reforms.

    It’s a slow creep towards totalitarianism.

  • MIchael Voris and Simon J. Rafe practice censorship of
    anyone who does not accept their messages on face value. That leads me to believe they are fake critics
    seeking to marginalize rather than serve any issue.

  • I believe they love their faith and don’t like it when bishops fail in their duty to feed their sheep.

    Instead they hide behind man-made bureaucracies hoping that difficult issues that don’t adhere to their Democratic Party Catholic leanings would just go away.

  • Archbishoip Raymond Burke was well known for “speaking out”. In an article for Time online, Amy Sullivan (Priests Spar Over What it Means to Be Catholic) alludes to the fact of his removal by the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference. In particular, the article states that because of a “calming down” of the anti-abortion rhetoric, the president was elected. In fact, I can tell you that here in St. Louis, the archbishop who replaced Burke (Carlson) silenced the Latin rite Church (St. Francis De Sales) from speaking out against abortion from the pulpit.

  • D Paul,
    That surprises me greatly. I wonder whether the “silencing” actually referred to exhortations on who to vote for or not vote for, which is a violation of federal tax law. Under federal tax law churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations may receive contributions on a tax deductible basis only if they refrain from political or partisan behavior. Within much more relaxed constraints they normally can engage in legislative or policy behavior. Telling a congregation that it is important to vote for candidates who are opposed to abortion is fine (even if somewhat simplistic from a Catholic perspective), but a minister may not tell his congregation to vote for X or against Y, at least without losing the right to receive contributions on a tax deductible basis. I’d be very surprised if AB Carlson told the priest at SFdS that he could not speak out against abortion from the pulpit. If true, that really would be quite scandalous, and shocking given that AB Carlson is among the bishops who criticized ND for awarding pro-abort Obama an honorary degree.

Nancy Pelosi Calls Protesters Un-American

Monday, August 10, AD 2009

[Updates at the bottom of this posting.  Most recent update at 6:54 pm CST 8-10-09]

Nancy Pelosi, the liberal Democratic Representative from San Francisco, wrote early this morning in a special USA Today Nancy Pelosi 1editorial that those protesting against government run health care are “un-American“.

It is clear to Representative Pelosi and her cohorts that the majority of Americans do not want further government intrusion into their lives, hence Mrs. Pelosi’s attempts at demonizing ordinary Americans.

Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.

She is referring to the many town hall meetings where Americans were voicing their displeasure to government run health care.  Deliberately smearing Americans for voicing their opinions.

Sadly, the mainstream media is doing their part in painting these town halls as darkly as possible, regardless of the evidence that SEIU goons, Blueshirts, have already attacked health care protesters.

Let’s wait until the 2010 congressional elections and see their opinions voiced in turning back European style socialism by voting these malefactors out of office.

Update I: House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) ripped his Democratic counterparts Monday for labeling those disrupting lawmaker town halls as “un-American.”  Read the rest of this here.

Update II: The guy that beat up Mr. Gladney:

Elston K. McCowan is a former organizer – now the Public Service Director of SEIU Local 2000 – and board member of the Walbridge Community Education Center, and is a Baptist minister, has been a community organizer for more than 23 years, and now, he is running for Mayor of the City of St. Louis under the Green Party.

McCowan accused the Mayor of setting fire to his van . . . because that’s what big city mayors do in their spare time, I guess.  He also called [St Louis Mayor Francis] Slay a racist.  And, on election night, McCowan thanked the family who voted for him.  It was quite touching, actually.

McCowan is not a rank-and-file, card-carrying union guy.  He is a director with SEIU. He IS the union.  He ISSUES the cards. Andy Stern himself might as well have kicked Gladney.

Read the rest here.

Continue reading...

71 Responses to Nancy Pelosi Calls Protesters Un-American

  • Nancy Pelosi is un American to say what she said. Our founders scuffled all the time. Time to come down from your ivory tower congress and listen for a change instead of shoving things as us we dont want. The protests will not stop til you listen and do what the people in your areas want.

  • Be fair, for heaven’s sake… You don’t have to like Nancy Pelosi (I don’t) and yu can be against the health care plan, but she did NOT call the protesters “Un-American” She said:

    “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American”

    Let’s discuss this issue and quit trying to put words in the mouth of anyone…

  • m.,

    Read my article carefully.

    I mentioned what you said and I explained how she referred to protesters as un-American.

    She doesn’t distinguish between mob attacks (which have been done by the Dems) and actual grassroots protesters.

  • Quit spinning. Nancy Pelosi is against anyone who wont take her poison pill. You must think Americans are stupid. Go USA. She works for us and will soon be fired.

  • Nancy Pelosi is trying to drown out our opposing views by calling it un American. She is trying to punish us for not agreeing with her horrific lack of healthcare plan

  • Well, if you go to the source, you’ll notice that the sentence in context points pretty directly at anti-Obamacare protesters, some of whom have had the unmitigated gall to chant slogans (!) at Pelosi and her buds.

    Funny, since from where I’m sitting it looks like an awful lot of that trying to drown out opposing views is coming from Pelosi, her buds, and some of their hired or coopted punks.

  • obamas union thugs have brought the violence to the scene. they beat up a black man at one rally and yesterday shoved a camera in a ladys face. they are bringing the violence to the scene and they have been endorsed by the whitehouse to go stir things up. there was no violence before just yelling

  • OK, so the people show up and don’t have something like Acorn T shirts, or union Ts and professionally manufactured signs and such are the typical Americans? I get it…If you have one of those Ts then you can drown them out.

    It is after all a one party system and we are to sit down and shut up. I get it.

  • i have been to 3 tea parties. i went on my own with my senior citizen car. absolutely no organizing. you go if you want. you go informed and that is what is killing congress. they expect us to be stupid and too busy to follow the issues. congress if first time meeting their voters and they know more than them. Americans will win this cause we are patriots and we fight to win.

  • Obama & Pelosi aren’t the only ones who like perfectly scripted townhalls and speaking engagements. Did Bush ever have a public forum to which tickets were not restricted to only fawning sycophants – only one that I can think of that press conference in Iraq where he had a shoe tossed at him. If these forums dealt with the “WAR” on terror and there were persons speaking out US policy in the middle east who would be calling people un-American then – who did call people un-american when they spoke out against the war – go to your back issues of National Review dealing with those Un-patriotic Conservatives who dared to opposed Bushes war in Iraq.

    I think both sides are terribly hypocritcial.

  • Did Bush ever have a public forum to which tickets were not restricted to only fawning sycophants

    I don’t recall Bush and Cheney calling people who disagreed with them un-American. Oh, but there was that one article in NR (written by the guy that most conservatives have long ago written off as being a total sellout idiot). I guess that makes the two sides equivalent in some weird, wacky way,

  • Welcome to Bizarro world Paul.

  • bush is gone. move forward zummo. america is speaking and congress must listen or get the boot pure and simple. it is not about how nice anyone speaks it is about how well the congressman listens and answers. simple stuff

  • Errr, mommalu, I was responding to awakaman.

  • Sorry Paul & Tito:

    I am obviously Un-American (or bizzare) for not recognizing the greatness of the Bush presidency and the War on Terror. You have proven my point – engage in strawman agruments as opposed to addressing the facts.

    Did Bush or Cheney call people who opposed their policies Un-American I don’t know or remember – but their agents Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin, O’Reilly, Beck, The Weekly Standard, FOX News, and NRO sure did. Either that or “you didn’t support the troops”. It wasn’t just David Frum it was the entire Mainstream “Conservative” Media.

  • “I am obviously Un-American (or bizzare) for not recognizing the greatness of the Bush presidency and the War on Terror.”

    Oh yeah —

    I forgot about all the devestating terror attacks that took place on U.S. soil subsequent to 9/11 due to the remarkable incompetency of that very administration.

  • (written by the guy that most conservatives have long ago written off as being a total sellout idiot)

    Mr. Frum is a libertarian of a sort atypical among journalists and academics but (one suspects) fairly common among rank-and-file voters of a libertarian orientation inasmuch as he does not attribute the disagreeableness of the world abroad to the bumbling of the governments of the United States and Israel and tends to share Arthur Vandenberg’s view that we are no longer innoculated by geography to this disagreeableness. I would doubt he is a sellout; he was just never your ally (or mine) bar on a restricted range of questions.

  • I forgot about all the devestating terror attacks that took place on U.S. soil subsequent to 9/11 due to the remarkable incompetency of that very administration.

    None of Mr. Bush’s discretionary appointees were in charge of the Massachusetts Port Authority, nor did they generate the Chinese walls within the FBI.

  • Did Bush ever have a public forum to which tickets were not restricted to only fawning sycophants – only one that I can think of that press conference in Iraq where he had a shoe tossed at him.

    Which of us (including you) was keeping a catalogue of the public appearances of either man?

  • Art Deco:

    Perhaps you would’ve been much more relieved had another 9/11 occurred during Bush’s presidential terms; perhaps then you could glory on how incompetent his administration was in preventing a subsequent attack on U.S. soil all throughout his extended terms — the again, such leftists are known to glory in the deaths of innocent civilians so long as their political aims are celebrated in the end!

  • Awakeman,

    Don’t stop engaging in dialogue. Just because we disagree we don’t have to be disagreeable.

  • am obviously Un-American (or bizzare) for not recognizing the greatness of the Bush presidency and the War on Terror. You have proven my point – engage in strawman agruments as opposed to addressing the facts.

    Umm, do you even know what a strawman argument is? From this paragaph, obviously not, especially since it is you who just created one.

    Did Bush or Cheney call people who opposed their policies Un-American I don’t know or remember –

    The answer is no. The rest of your comment is therefore gibberish.

  • I suspect the point of Pelosi’s comments weren’t to name call, rather to distract American’s for actually debating the health care legislation. If she can demonize the protestors their concerns become less important. Amercan’s see this bill as another step towards socialism, where our liberties are slowly being eroded. For real health care reform, it must start with tort reform. The medical malpractice in the US has assumed crisis proportions, and is the single largest contributor to insurance and health care waste, estimated over $200B every year. Fear of litigation pervades all aspects of medical practice, if forces our doctors to act and behave in ways that are contradictory to their medical profession. This is because the spector of lawsuits erodes professional integrity and promotes the practice of defensive medicine. Forty years ago only 1 in 7 physicians were sued during their careers. Current estimates indicate that 1 of 7 physicians are sued every year. Recent reports indicate that half of all physicians make clinical decisions that are influenced by either an extreme or a strong desire to minimize the possibility of lawsuit. With the money that is saved on Tort Reform we would be on our way to paying for many of the uninsured.

  • Pelosi is an embarrassment, not only to her party, but to her country.

  • This article misrepresents Nancy Pelosi’s comments. She is not against disagreement. She is talking about the rude, shouting, unwilling to let others talk behavior that is being fostered and encouraged by some front groups for a conservative lobbying firm, Fox News and some Republican sites. Nancy Pelosi is not saying disagreement is anti-American, she is stating the disruptive behavior which interferes with the actual discussion is anti-Amreican because it is not allowing discussion. It’s unfortunate that a Catholic site would so clearly misrepresent the Speaker’s words and intent.

  • Solarzar,

    If you read the context that she wrote the article in, she is implicitly denigrating the point of view that contradicts her world view.

    Secondly, the fact that you refer to anyone protesting government intrusion in peoples lives as ront groups for a conservative lobbying firm, Fox News and some Republican sites clearly demonstrates your disdain towards others that hold views dissimilar to your own.

    You’ve outed yourself as one of those that finds it difficult that there are others out there that actually have views different from your own.

    That is the fallacy of those on the left. You’re allowed to disagree, just as long as you don’t disagree with your point of view.

    To use your condescending words, it’s unfortunate that a liberal would so clearly show contempt towards other Americans that don’t share your politics.

  • Fox News

    I have no particular love of Fox News, and frankly I think all television news is complete crap, but why does every single person who derides conservatives bring up Fox News? Do they really think that we’re all just sitting there awaiting our marching orders, oblivious to any other information out there?

    Well, they probably do, but that only speaks to their limited sources of information and constrained worldview.

  • Art:

    1. Please see the following article from that “balanced” news source FOX News:

    “There is an active campaign underway to try and disrupt and disturb his [President Bush’s] events in hopes of undermining his objective of fixing Social Security,” White House spokesman Trent Duffy told FOXNews.com. “If there is evidence there are people planning to disrupt the president at an event, then they have the right to exclude those people from those events.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153720,00.html

    2. I would not refer to David Frum as a libertarian. He like most Neo-Cons have a love for the State, at least one that they control and have no problem with big government and higher taxes so long as it advances their agenda. I suppose you are only addressing his position on abortion, but a pro-choice position on abortion does not a libertarian make.

  • Paul,

    What rankles liberals is that most Americans, not conservatives, watch Fox News instead of CNN or MSNBC, which is their favorite source of biased programming.

    With that said, I don’t watch Fox News either.

    Though it is interesting the bitterness and contempt that many liberals do have for Fox News.

    Awakeman,

    Thank you for rejoining the conversation.

  • I bring up Fox News because they specifically encourage protestors to challenge the town hall discussions of Health Care. You are correct that I don’t agree with Fox News but I do agree with disagreement. I did read the interview with Nancy Pelosi, I’m not outed as anything. I agree with free speech, but that is not the same as people shouting and disrupting the discussions preventing the dialogue. Also, Fox News tells not relate news, it fosters misinformation. In addition, I have never been anything but a registered Republican who served 21 years in the Marine Corps and currently works for the Department of Defense. But I do believe whether you like Pelosi or not, this article misrepresents her point. I do despise Fox News, because it is not news, it is propaganda and it is against free speech. So if you choose to define me, I will help. I am someone who has served and continues to serve this nation. I am not against any view, I am only against views based on false information and lack of fairness to the truth.

  • I seldom ever watch broadcast news either, but when I do I go to Fox news.

    One, even though most of the commentary personalities would fall on the right, the actual reporting isn’t seething with a particular bias, and you’ll actually see negative things said about the Pubs, where you won’t see negative things said about the Dems on other networks.

    Two, as much as I dislike Hannity and O’Reilly, I have never seen such despicable commentators as those who lead up MSNBC.

    Three, and perhaps most important, Fox is at the forefront of having a wide lineup of extra-talented woman anchors and commentators.

  • Solarzar,

    What part of “front groups for a conservative lobbying firm, Fox News and some Republican sites clearly” did you misread?

    I didn’t accuse you of being a Democrat nor of not serving your country… which has absolutely nothing to do with my original point.

    You’re a liberal for bringing up “conservative lobbying firm(s) and Republican sites”.

  • I bring up Fox News because they specifically encourage protestors to challenge the town hall discussions of Health Care.

    Here’s Charles Krauthammer, on Fox last night riling up the protesters:

    he Democrats are pulling a rabbit out of a hat, and the Republicans (or conservatives) are handing the Democrats the rabbit. The Democrats have no argument. They have no facts. They don’t even really have a bill.

    And if people were just to stand up and quietly and civilly raise questions — “the money doesn’t add up,” “the CBO has said that you say it is going to control costs, but it increases it by $1 trillion,” all of this stuff, it’s really out there — they would be winning this debate as they were before the town halls.

    What’s happening is this is causing a backlash. It’s completely unnecessary. It is shooting yourself in the foot. If you want to demonstrate, you want to shout, you do it outside carrying signs. When you walk inside [the town hall meeting], you ask questions.

    This is going to have two effects. Public opinion will make people, if anything, rather unsympathetic to those who oppose the bills.

    And secondly, it’s going to give a great excuse for the Democrats, when Congress returns, to push a partisan bill with no Republican support and say it’s because the opposition is not — is simply oppositionist without any arguments and is acting in an irresponsible way.

    Yeah, really sounds like he’s egging people on there. And Mort Kondracke, another loony right-winger of course, was even more critical.

  • If I choose to dislike Fox, that is still not the point. Let me be more clear, Hannity specifically has encouraged misinformation and false informatin and encourage people to challenge the Health Care debate, as had Glenn Beck. Now if Fox wants to encourage fair and balanced I’m not asking it to censor news reporting, but it has an obligation to correct misinformation. Locally I prefer my Fox channel, but I do not appreciate corporate Fox programming under the banner of news. That’s my preference, and when I state they have encourage the disruption you will find it with several of the woman anchors you mention, Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly. That’s more than an occassional item. Whether you like any other news or not is your choice, however, I hear many sources of information and read. My decisions are based on that. This article is biased again Nancy Pelosi in language and intent which makes it unfair. Notice how quickly I was labelled a liberal, I didn’t like others point of view and how quickly I had to be wrong in my point of view. I didn’t challenge anyone’s point of view only the bias of this article.

  • Excuse the typos on the last post. I often think ahead of my fingers.

  • Solarzar,

    Many of us here at AC do not like nor have much respect for Hannity or O’Reilly.

    And to be fair, I don’t have cable period, hence why I don’t watch FOx News, nor CNN, nor MSNBC.

  • Also, Fox News tells not relate news, it fosters misinformation. In addition, I have never been anything but a registered Republican

    Bash Fox? Check.

    Claim to be a life-long Republican? Check.

    Do I think this person is a seminar commenter? Double check.

  • Solarzar,

    Please disregard the last two lines of my comments towards you for the 11:41pm comment posting.

  • and encourage people to challenge the Health Care debate,

    Oh no, he’s telling people to “challenge” the supporters of HC reform. The man is truly a Nazi in disguise.

    Also, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are not and do not claim to be straight news anchors in the traditional sense. They are opinion journalists – no different in that sense than Olberman and Mathews on MSNBC.

    Anyway, from the sounds of it you spend a lot more time watching Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity than any of the people who actually are conservatives on this site do. Unless of course you’re just spewing talking points from leftist websites, and there’s no way that could possibly be true.

  • What is a seminar commenter? And why am I a troll?

    Also, you there is a direct line to a lobbying firm that began the instructions on how to disrupt the town hall meetins. I’m not in a place to relay the specific information but I didn’t make it up I saw the interviews and read the articles. Does it have to be false if you don’t believe it?

    When you name a person as a liberal with disdain, when you choose to use terms with dismissal are you being open to discussion? You don’t know me, and I don’t know you, but I didn’t challenge anyone on this forum. I challenged the article as being biased, and the language is.

    And I challenged media misinformation. This why the discussion gets sidetracked, it turns into a personal attack or dismissal instead of a discussion of differences.

  • Solarzar,

    “front groups for a conservative lobbying firm, Fox News and some Republican sites clearly”

    Liberal talking points.

    Whether you got it from HuffPo, Daily Kos, or Vox Nova, liberal is is liberal say or do.

  • And I challenged media misinformation. This why the discussion gets sidetracked, it turns into a personal attack or dismissal instead of a discussion of differences.

    You haven’t made a single substantive comment. You’ve made vague assertions about Fox News, and spent the rest of the time whining about how people choose to respond to your comments.

  • Since when did Fox’s Hannity, O’Reilly and the like pass off for the News of the Right — especially given the fact that these are largely the feeding posts of the Neo-cons?

    Also, you don’t see me mocking the biased leftist shows like Stewart’s Daily Show, which often actually passes for legitimate news for most, if not, all liberals!

  • I will agree that using Hannity, OReilly and Beck in the same breath as Fox News is unfair on my part.

    Tito I think I know which comments you are asking me to ignore. Fair enough.

    Also to Paul’s comments I have a talk radio show so I do spend time researching many of these issues. I came across this site because of research I was doing and only chose to comment because I believe the Catholic church should spend more time presenting the information with less bias.

    Since you don’t know me I am also a biblical scholar who spends a great deal of time reading and studying the bible. As a former Catholic I do find many of the views expressed in the political arena to be counter to a Christian view. Can they disagree, absolutely. But first present the unbiased facts.

    What are facts.

    1. Many groups are disrupting Town Hall meetings.

    2. Repulbican sites (not all), are listing Democratics town hall meetings (not Republican) as sites to debate the Health Care issue.

    3. The lobbying form run by Dick Armey has put together a program on how to disrupt the Democratic town hall meetings.

    4. The health insurance companies have put together a campaign to fight against the Health Care initiative by calling it socialism (how many times have you heard that).

    5. An M Street conservative lobbying firm has sent Health Care information buses to various states and they have been captured on film reciting the “euthenasia” mantra that is not in the House bill on Health Care.

    6. Do you have to believe anything I day – No. However, this isn’t an emotional rant. It’s a different view of the Speaker’s comments based on these points.

    So we can agree to not agree.

  • Solarzar,

    Thank you for engaging us in this conversation.

    There may be links from a lobbying firm, but you have to admit that this is a small group when you look at the whole sample.

  • Tito,

    You may be right. Back to my original point, whether you like Nancy Pelosi or not the framework of her statements are some of the overt “disruptive” behavior, not disagreement.

    That was my disagreement with the article, and not with others views. Since you seemed to know each other I just attempted to put my views in context.

    Thank you for sharing your views.

  • Actually, some of your facts are disputable, and others are hardly damning. People are organizing protests? Shocking!

    But yes, let’s agree to disagree.

  • Solarzar,

    I still don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re attempting to demonstrate, especially given the opinions (rather than “facts”) which you’ve presented before us as what should solidify some God-only-knows contention concerning some saintly depiction of Pelosi as anything other than arrogantly biased.

    Tito Taco and Paul Zummo might agree with whatever fertilizer you’re selling them as “facts”; however, I am still quite awed how easily they’re taken by your style of argumentation which seems more so likened to a peasoup fog; yet, I guess what passes off for legitimate debate these days is this kind of refuse.

  • e,

    I didn’t think they agreed with what I said, only agreed with our disagreement.

    Also, my only point was I felt the article was biased to Nancy Pelosi’s opinion, and I don’t believe they agree.

  • however, I am still quite awed how easily they’re taken by your style of argumentation

    Heh. I thought I was being overly aggressive with solarzar, but evidently I wasn’t being clear enough in my dismissal of his points.

    I’ll try harder next time, e.

  • e.,

    I’ll try to be more condescending and obtuse next time as well.

  • paul zummo:

    Good for you! I’d expect better from a person of your stature.

    You shouldn’t let falsehood get by so easily.

    Sure, by all means, be courteous; however, that doesn’t mean neglecting what your very intellect is advising you and, not to mention, surrendering your very dignity to the likes of such petty opponents — especially those whose arguments are a little more than merely makeweights.

    Leave that to the likes of Tito Taco.

    Based on past comments I’ve surveyed from you, you’re certainly better than this.

  • e.,

    Thank you for that Eddie Haskell comment.

  • Tito Taco:

    Well, sorry to disappoint, but I’m not the “Thank-you, Sir, May I have another?” kind of person.

    Bad enough that somebody is putting forth what hardly seems an argument in the first place; worse, to treat such a person as if his very point was somehow so dignified!

    You gents might prefer such humiliation and treat such insulting adversaries as if they were God’s-Gift-to-the-World; however, back in the ole days, when Right was right, we didn’t let off such falsehood so easily and, even further, thanked them for not only their insultingly risible argument but also for their apparent ridicule, too.

  • e,

    I didn’t believe I ridiculed anyone here. You don’t like my opinions, fine. I didn’t attempt to insult anyone, only the article.

  • awakaman,

    That there are lobbies and other organized activity is neither sinister nor an indication that they are the motor for most of those in protest.

    Mr. Frum about fifteen years ago published a book with the title Dead Right. The contents certainly looked like an extended libertarian argument to me, but perhaps a deficient memory or my Neo-Con love of the state has addled me.

  • Solarzar:

    Adducing as your supporting “fact” that Fox News is biased, etc.; for the still dubious contention that the article itself is somehow “biased” because it doesn’t rightly portray Pelosi et al. in some sort of spectacularly positive light and expecting us to take such “facts” as valid corroboration for such contention is indeed (even if somewhat) of a ridiculing nature.

    You are either being deceptively disingenuous or perhaps, at the very least, remarkably naive.

  • I have never been anything but a registered Republican who served 21 years in the Marine Corps and currently works for the Department of Defense.

    ….

    I have a talk radio show

    I am also a biblical scholar

    I don’t buy this guy for a second. He comes on attacking the majority conservative/republican approach to bad legislation, defends the democrat leadership, attacks conservative commentators, defends the bad legislation… claims to be a US Marine and a lifelong Republican, talk show host and biblical scholar…. wow…

    if it walks and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

    I call QUACK.

    No further discussion until you provide some bona-fides, how about the name of your “show” and station it airs on?

  • Why must I defend everything I say. How come I must be either lying or wrong.

    Here is the fallacy: I was researching the Pelosi interview. This link appeared. I mistook the blog entry for a news report of Pelosi. The blog is certainly biased against Pelosi and what she said. It has the point of view of the blogger – I didn’t realize that.

    I never said I was lifelong Republican. It is the only party I have ever belonged to. I left the Republican party in 1994 because of it’s affiliation with the Religious Right. I believe in the separation of Church and State and the integration of a religious platform into the Republican platform doesn’t suit me.

    I research these topics for discussion on my show, which I don’t have to prove. It’s unfortunate that only one view is the right view. Life is actually nuanced. Not right or left.

    My service was 21 years from machine gunner to Director of a benefits and customer service agency for the Department of Defense. I went from enlisted to officer during my 21 years. Currently I am a subject matter expert for the DoD and I coordinate and provide benefits to the active, retired and reserve Service members and their family members. I support over 37 million people, as well as manage projects that support the exchange of information and benefits between the VA and the DoD.

    I walk my talk and believe in free speech, not the stifling or limitation of opinions. I also believe everyone has a right to express based on the facts. Pelosi was expressing a dissatisfaction with the disruption and shouting at town halls and said it was un-American for either side of the discussion to stifle discussion by shouting or not allowing the people to express their views. It was not a biased or partisan position.

    I did not paint some spectacularly positive lights for the Democratic Party, Pelosi, or even the Health Care issues. I do consider myself a Progressive, but on some issues I’m conservative, on some I’m moderate and on some I’m liberal. None of that matters if the discussion is only framed around one side. There is no single answer to anything.

    It took until e’s last comment for me to recognize that I was naive that this was a blog and not a Catholic sanctioned site so I was interferring with a secular house that only accepted a particular view. The discussion often generated into an attack of me, not my opinions, although I have to admit my general criticism of Fox news sure lit a firestorm.

    Dick Armey has a lobbying firm called DLA Piper. He accepts clients and then generates “grass roots” support throught his group called Freedom Works. Freedom Works generated guidelines for how to “disrupt” (their term, not mine) town hall meetings on Health Care it is called the “August Recess Action Kit”).

    Members of DLA Piper include Matt Kibbe, former RNC Chair, and Richard Stephenson, CEO of Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Frredom Works also supported the “Tea Party Patriots”. You might like the work they do, but they are disgusing how they do it and proclaiming it as grass roots when it is financed, funded and sheilded. That is the false part. Can they object – sure.

    Any American can disagree, have opposing views, and as citizens any member of DLA Piper can object to any position. However, they use Freedom Works as their front organization claiming grass roots action based on the client list of DLA Piper. You don’t have to take my word. Just take the time to look into Freedom Works, DLA Piper, and Dick Armey. It’s all avialable if you look hard enough.

    My show is Good Vibrations Radio: Tools for Transformation on AM 540, KRXA in Monterey, California. I’m certain you wouldn’t like it since it is progressive. As for my biblical studies, I’m working on my Doctor of Divinity, have spent the last 18 months on New Testament studies with many more months to go. Notice I said scholar, not expert. But I speak only what I believe to be true. Yet, there are many truths to many people, we learn by listening.

    I won’t bother you gentleman again since this is a public, yet private forum that I mistook for an affiliated Catholic site. Now that I’ve explored I do agree I was naive in what I thought the site was.

  • Matt McDonald:

    I don’t buy this guy for a second.

    Thank God — finally, a voice of reason!

  • Solazar,

    I have never been anything but a registered Republican

    you basically started your posting here with an intentionally misleading statement. Whatever you were up until 15 years ago, you are now an progressive/liberal. So that’s why I called quack, I knew something wasn’t right.

    As to your other points, it’s clear that you’re reading the talking points put out by the Soro’s funded elements so it’s a little bit of pot calling the kettle black. In any event, that some group is disseminating information does not change the nature of the opposition. Most people opposed to health care have an instinctive reaction to it and then follow up with research and seek like-minded organizations to work with. Unlike many Soros funded “activism” no reimbursement or assistance beyond information is provided to the groups who are opposing health care and so it’s far more legitimate.

    Your points on the health care bill are all based on the best presumptions about how the executive and bureaucracy will perform their duties. It’s clear from past history that this is a very naive approach. Consider that 2 of Obama’s key advisers have come out in favor of euthanasia and eugenics, positions they have never dissavowed… who is running the bureaucracy?

  • One can find out the basics of military service from public records such as Military.com if one has a real name. There are several things that can be Googled about Solarzar starting with his radio broadcast. One wonders about what his divinity dissertation will be like given this:

    http://www.solarzar.com/

  • One can get a sense of his political views on his blog:

    http://www.solarzar.blogspot.com/

    Somehow I don’t think he is a Republican.

  • Not a little self-serving biography:

    Solarzar is an expert in Leadership, Communication & Customer Service, Goal Planning, and Stress Management. He’s a Master Trainer, award winning Speaker, and Psychic Entertainer who has lived many lives in one: from living on the streets as a teenager to going through the enlisted to the officer ranks in the U.S. Marine Corps during a 21 year career. He is a high school droput who became the Principal of a publicly traded company and brings a wealth of experience that he shares in his powerful, life-changing, magical presentations.

  • So Solarzar is a Psychic entrepreneur that performs magical presentations?

    That makes since, given that the general outline of his argumentation herein is just about as magical as his ironically “biased” contention.

  • Abacadabra: “since” become “sense”!

  • Pingback: Sleeping Giant Awakes and Democrats Blink « The American Catholic
  • You have to understand that the “New Democratic Party” is now a party of the “Elitists”. They used to represent the average “Joe In The Street” but now are only concerned in a, shall we say, Socialist point of view and if you don’t agree with their view, get out of the way. Look at the sweet hearts of the Democratic Party. Would you like to have them in your house? Pelosi, Reed, Dodd, Frank, Boxer?

  • Dean Carlson:

    As Fr. Groeschel himself once remarked, it wasn’t former democrats who betrayed the Democrat Party; it was actually the Democrat Party itself.

    Your above comments are the best thus far that not only addresses this but the rather unfortunate fact that is the Democrat Party.

Blueshirts, Pelosi, and Mobs, Oh My!

Saturday, August 8, AD 2009

It’s been an interesting week in the world of American politics.  With the arrogance of congressional Democrats and the White House attempts at discrediting a grassroots movement, the passions will certainly continue to climb after the weekend is over.

Here are some highlights from these past few days:

1. At a town hall last week in Dallas, an elderly “mob” with “manufactured” outrage questioned AARP’s support for nationalized health care, asking: “Do you work for us or do we work for you?”

There were no swastika-wearing grannies at Tuesday’s meeting, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might claim. Nor were they “taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongers . . . and insurance rackets,” as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said.

But they were mad as hell at the perception that AARP was selling them out in the name of government-run medical insurance. That perception was not helped when the AARP town hall on the subject was shut down by the seniors outfit once the members dared to ask questions. The AARP representatives did not want to hear from the members at all. Just send in your dues, granny, and be quiet.

To read the rest of this IDB Editorial click here.

2. You’ve heard a lot about this crazy, scary, vicious mob on some shadowy GOP payroll. By the way the DNC, Rachel Maddow, and President Obama talk, you’d think it was a motley crue of Hell’s Angels.

Let me introduce you to the mob:

scary mob 1

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Blueshirts, Pelosi, and Mobs, Oh My!

  • A superb roundup Tito! You have a real talent for putting these together!

  • It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people. And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.

    How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a lynch mob advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.

  • If you don’t know who Rick Scott is then you don’t know who is duping you. This is the false prophet. Scott is the money-changer you let into your temple. Scott is a big health care CEO (whose company by the way was fined $1.7 billion for fraud) who is financing the disruption of the town hall meetings. He is the temptor who has cause you to stumble into the gospel of hatred for your fellow man. His “salvation” (money) is to get you to serve corporate profits instead of your fellow man.

    One Master said “Feed my sheep,” “As ye do to the least of these my brothers, you do unto me.” Perhaps you can appreciate how that would be served by universal health care?
    The other “master” says, “shout them down,” and “voice your anger.” Does that really serve your mission to be the spreader of the Good News?

    I truly feel sorry for good-hearted people who have been drawn into the hatred of political extremism and who honestly think they are serving Christ, when in fact they are serving corporate lobbyists. What a shame!

    Check it out: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/06/rick-scott-sanchez/

  • Paul,

    Those were very hateful elderly people in those posts.

    I guess the GOP Hate-van picked them at an early bird dinner and bussed them over to these town halls.

    It’s called grasping at straws.

  • I really don’t care how great the proposed healthcare bill is, even if it give cradle to grave care to all at the same level Congress enjoys (don’t mention the military, our healthcare isn’t all that great). I don’t care if B.O. & Company summon up a genie to pay for it all with no expense to the taxpayers. I don’t care if there is absolutely no provisions for funding abortions in it.

    If it doesn’t expressly forbid coverage for abortion and euthanasia it isn’t good enough. Period.

  • The health care plan on offer provides for government funding of abortions. Pointing to shady corporate lobbyists doesn’t change that gruesome fact. Who’s the temptor who put that murderous, needless and revolutionary language in the bill? Mr. Scott may be a fraud, but he hasn’t snuffed human life on the scale contemplated by this health bill.

    It has no place in a “health care” bill. Demand that it be taken out and I’ll stand with you, CL. Ignore it, and I’ll ignore you.

  • Paul,

    Do you have a citation for your assertion that the military receive the ‘the best health care in the world’?

    I am not aware that anyone has asserted that private enterprise is infallible, merely that it generally performs more efficiently in the provision of merchandise and services unless the good in question is one that cannot be vended on a market (e.g. law enforcement, or natural environments) because the costs and benefits of the provision of the service are very poorly aligned, payer and recipient being different parties (for the most part). A secondary problem you have is that often the use of markets to provide certain goods and services leads to a distribution of same that people find unpalatable. Medical services is one of those goods.

    People’s demand for goods and services (including medical services) is invariably going to exceed the capacity of producers to supply these services. From the perspective of the consumer, if you spend more on x, you have to spend less on y. Rationing of the fruits of productive capacity may be done through price systems or through administrative controls, but it must occur. Neither the individual household, nor the commercial insurer, nor the government have unlimited resources, so some party must be in the business of ‘denying coverage’ (i.e. refusing to pay for it). The commercial insurer charges you a premium which is derived in part from an understanding of a particular benefits configuration. If you change the benefits configuration post hoc, the insurance program is not actuarially sound and eventually goes bankrupt.

    The program as proposed is hideously rococo, is proposed to be enacted when there are severe demands on public resources from the banking crisis, and is being enacted when simpler alternatives that allow for more decision-making by consumers and providers are available. People also tend to be rather risk-averse in these sorts of situations, preferring a devil they know. That there is opposition is unsurprising. Get used to it.

  • Paul,

    the plan at offer bears no resemblance to the plan which congress generously offers itself, it’s more akin to medicare or the veterans administration. Active military enjoy excellent trauma care, but their “routine” medical system leaves a lot to be desired.

    ChristianLiberal (an oxymoron),

    and your well-crafted talking points are financed by George Soros. Whatever the agenda of Rick Scott’s organization, they fund NOBODY to attend any townhalls, they, along with many other conservative groups help to analyse the proposal (it’s >1000 pages for legalese and Orwellian “newspeak”) and communicate their findings. It’s the well funded SEIU that is far more in line with what you’re accusing us of.

  • Advocacy groups, at ALL points on the political spectrum, exist for a very good reason: because most ordinary people cannot take the time to thoroughly perform completely original research and personally lobby their legislators on EVERY single issue of interest to them.

    That’s why we have issue-based organizations that do it for us — National Right to Life, the NRA, AARP, the Sierra Club, etc. If they organize an event and provide transportation, meals, etc. for people to participate, does that automatically mean that every individual who attends is being “manipulated” or “bought” and therefore their views don’t deserve consideration? Do people’s views “count” only if they happen to find out about an event completely on their own and attend totally at their own expense, without using any arguments or “talking points” that have ever been used by anyone else?

    The mere fact that an advocacy group organizes an event or actively invites people to participate (no one has, as far as I know, claimed that anyone on either side was ordered or forced to attend) does NOT mean that the views expressed by those attendees are insincere or not worthy of attention. I think that applies just as much to SEIU as to any alleged GOP political operatives — if they care enough to show up for an event, they have a right to be heard AND a responsibility to let others be heard as well.

  • Elaine,

    you’re right of course, but in the case of the townhall ‘mobs’ the only support provided has been information as far as we know, and that’s generally the case with conservative causes. On the other hand, there is a LONG history of leftist groups using all sorts of enticements, including cash payments to individual protesters. Furthermore, it’s curious that the SEIU is showing a lot of interest in this matter, since union negotiated health care plans are largely exempted from interference under this law. Also notable is the special treatement afforded SEIU and other democrat activists at these supposedly “open forums”.

    I remember SEIU “protestors” involved in a janitorial contract dispute a couple of years ago marching around Cincinnati. I asked one of them what it was about and after a short discussion he acknowledged that he had no idea what it was about he just got paid to come out.

  • Pingback: Pelosi USA Today Editorial Calls Protesters “Un-American” « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Pelosi/Hoyer Calls Townhall Protesters ‘un-American’ « Specfriggintacular's Blog
  • I probably should have added that I have very little if any sympathy for SEIU, since they were among the biggest supporters of and donors to Illinois’ disgraced Governor Blago, and also among the most strident groups now pushing for a massive tax increase to cover the state deficit. I believe their efforts to organize home health care workers and demand taxpayer support for them are doing more harm than good to their cause and those of the elderly and disabled people they are supposed to be helping. Also, it is true that completely original arguments offered by someone acting on their own will carry more weight than canned “talking points”.

    What I take issue with, however, is the notion that participating in ANY kind of organized effort or campaign regarding an issue somehow invalidates one’s point of view or makes it less genuine.

    Also, Pelosi obviously doesn’t know what “astroturfing” means. In my experience as a journalist, it referred to instances in which an advocacy or lobbying group creates fake grass roots support for its point of view by getting its own members or clients to write a bunch of letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, blog posts, etc. in a way that makes them APPEAR to have come from ordinary citizens moved to write purely out of personal conviction — with NO mention of the authors’ group affiliation or personal or financial interest in the matter. However, the mere fact that a letter-writing campaign or public event is organized by some group does not make it “astroturf.”

  • Tito Edwards, Art Deco, Matt McDonald: It is very American to want to help our fellow countryman. I believe in my government especially our men and women in our military, firefighters and police. You, not so much. Lets face it the previous administration did nothing (except start two wars of choice that are bankrupting our country with all the “war profiteering” contracts to Halliburton) well you and I will just have to agree to not agree. I did not believe any of the Republican rhetoric before the last election and I do not believe them now. I do not believe that your sentiments are in line with the majority, but your comments, funny stuff.

  • Paul,

    Tito Edwards, Art Deco, Matt McDonald: It is very American to want to help our fellow countryman.

    yes, and we do. In fact, if you are a typical liberal, and we are typical conservatives then we do far more to help our fellow countrymen than you do… shame on you.

    I believe in my government especially our men and women in our military, firefighters and police. You, not so much.

    I believe in God Almighty. I appreciate and thank our military, firefighters, and police. The FEDERAL government bureacracy which you worship, not so much. State and local governments I appreciate and trust more because they are closer to the people.

    I do not believe that your sentiments are in line with the majority

    based on all the liberals you hang out with it’s not surprising that you have no idea what the majority think. Check the polls buddy.

  • “I believe in my government especially our men and women in our military, firefighters and police. You, not so much.

    And this comment was meant to prove what exactly?

    It reminds me of a corrupt company when faced with possible prosecution for dumping toxic wastes into rivers; they all of a sudden introduce the rather conspicuous red herring: well, our company, as you know, believes wholeheartedly in the greatness of these United States and, in fact, donate regularly to charitable causes!

    Well, quite frankly, much like the Demo-n-Caths and other like-minded felons who capitalize on the veneer of societal goodness, professing such remarkable love of country and their fellow man, all the while, advancing deterimental policies that only hinder and even injure the common citizen; I don’t buy the seemingly noble facade even for a second.

    Go sell your liberal goods elsewhere; while McDonald might play gracious host to you, I, on the other hand, see you for who you truly are: an actor disguising sheer demagoguery in mere sentimentalism but, as even evident in the agenda and actions of the current administration, nothing substantive or even noble where the average American Family is concerned, which policies as these can only prove injurious as regarding any purported benefits such policy claim to advance and can prove even fatal, especially in light of end-of-life issues which will certainly be truncated — not so surprising given the fiercely Pro-Abort administration bent on only advancing the merits of the Culture of Death.

  • e.,

    very eloquent!

  • Matt & e: Sticks and Stones……. Stick and Stones

    I do not believe that your sentiments are in line with the majority, but your comments, funny stuff.

  • Paul:

    I do not believe that your sentiments are in line with sanity; but, hey, such is the sorry state of the world.

    All things besides, interesting that you should flaunt your views as being the right one simply because you make the rather tenuous claim that it happens to be the majority, which doesn’t necessarily make them right even if so.

    That notorious ad populum is an old fallacy that even your own ignoble confreres have used time and again.

    Please do visit us again should you have something more substantive to share. Thanks.

  • e: Snore….Snore

SEIU Blueshirts Attack Health Care Protestor

Friday, August 7, AD 2009

SEIU Blueshirts

[Updates at the bottom of this posting.  Most recent update at 7:41 pm CST]

On Thursday, August 6, the White House call to arms by Deputy Chief of Staff David Axelrod, “punch back twice as hard“, at the growing grass roots movement opposing government single-payer health care produced the first violent incident later in the day.  During a Town Hall Meeting with U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan at Bernard Middle School gym in south St. Louis County, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members dressed in dark purple shirts, though they look blue in the video below, attacked a black American protester by savagely beating him.  The protester ended up in the Emergency Room of St. John’s Mercy Medical Center.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to SEIU Blueshirts Attack Health Care Protestor

  • I just realized that Donald had posted about this incident earlier on one of his updates, but it goes without saying that these protests are drawing violent reactions from proponents of government intrusion.

  • It’s an important event Tito and it needs all the exposure it can get. Great post!

  • Just flat-out disgusted.

    No less because I’ve already seen folks blaming… dum dum dum… opponents of the healthcare boondoggle for the violence. (How dare that fellow violently attack the union members’ shoes?)

  • I rather be called an American, but for the sake of argument…

    Latinos are predominantly more conservative, traditional, and orthodox in their Catholic faith than liberals lead on. Once we find someone who can break this liberal stereotype, the floodgates will open when Latino’s realize that there are more platforms within the GOP than in the Democratic Party that reflects their own values.

  • This whole health reform mess gets uglier by the day.

    At what point do the Democrats back off?

    Mr. H
    http://www.allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/

  • At what point can any Catholic in good conscience and of good-will be associated with the party of death?

    At first I was outraged by the barbaric violence found on this video but on further reflection this is a predictable natural outcome for a party that accepts abortion as the paramount plank in its platform. If you accept murder, then on what grounds would you object to anything that amounts to less?

  • Pingback: Pelosi USA Today Editorial Calls Protesters “Un-American” « The American Catholic
  • Marlene,

    Please be more careful in stating your opinions and refrain from what may be perceived as racist remarks.

  • Wait, I’m confused. Gladney is the black guy lying on the ground where the white guy is trying to kick him, right? Why is Gladney wearing a “Health Care 09: We Can’t Wait” t-shirt? That’s an SEIU shirt.

    Or is Gladney the guy who gets knocked down right after, while he’s rushing over to the downed SEIU guy? Because that guy gets right back up and is walking around throughout the rest of the video. Did he get some sort of delayed-onset injury, where you can walk around, chat with a cameraman, flag down the cops, and speak just fine on Fox News the next day, but then the day after that you can hardly move?

  • Gladney is the *skinny* black guy wearing a tan polo shirt; the one that purple-shirt-blue-jeans-hat on the right throws to the ground again at about 0:05, while the camera guy is trying to get what the heck is up.

    Can’t see who you think is rushing over, because you can see Gladney being pulled to his feet (and swaying) by the guy who looks like retired military, the one that directs a lady to pick up the button-boards.

    The fat guy in the purple shirt is the one that called him a n****r and first attacked him, if I understand it correctly– he’s on the ground because folks pulled him off Gladney. (and if that’s an attempt to kick, they suck– cheap shot would be dead easy there)

    I’m wondering– have you ever been hurt? It often takes at least five minutes after an attack before you realize how hurt you are. I know that when I got bucked off and dislocated my shoulder, I didn’t know it was damaged until I couldn’t lift it to climb the fence.

    Unless you’re going to claim that the hospital treated him for imaginary injuries….

  • Update on the guy mistaken for Gladney:
    Elston K. McCowan is a former organizer – now the Public Service Director of SEIU Local 2000 – and board member of the Walbridge Community Education Center, and is a Baptist minister, has been a community organizer for more than 23 years, and now, he is running for Mayor of the City of St. Louis under the Green Party.

    He’s…kind of known for nutty behavior, since he accused the mayor of setting fire to his/church/Green campaign van….

  • Pingback: Who are the Real Brownshirts? « Right Sided American Kafir
  • Pingback: Obamaville Shanty Towns: Tent Cities Sprouting Up Across America « The American Catholic