The Politics Of Defunding Planned Parenthood

Father Marcel Guarnizo, formerly of my parish before he was dismissed for upholding the Church's teachings on worthy reception of Holy Communion, wrote an article detailing his opinion of what the GOP in Congress should do in the wake of the Planned Parenthood videos.  To be specific, he is touching upon the matter of the funding of Planned Parenthood within the federal budget.  As I read the article, Father states that there is no moral impediment to passing a budget that includes Planned Parenthood funding, for 1) they don't have the votes in the Senate, 2) they don't have the votes to override Obama's veto and 3) they have tried before.  While I can see his point, I'm not sure I'd be ready to throw in the towel just yet.

I'd like to focus on two points made under the sub-heading "Material versus Formal Cooperation".  The first one may seem minor, but not from a Constitutional standpoint.  He seems to speak of the members of Congress "signing a federal budget".  No one in Congress signs anything; rather, it creates legislation to be enacted.  The signing of that legislation is left to the President to sign it into law or veto it.  Second, Father states that "a law exists in place forbidding federal dollars from being used for abortions".  While that's true, the concept of fungibility renders that fact irrelevant.

From my days as treasurer of a non-profit, I can speak of fungibility from first-hand experience.  Most np’s have a pool of funds used for general operating purposes (called gen-op for short) with no restrictions on how those monies can be spent.  A hypothetical np might have 5 areas in which they use these funds, and of course funds run rather thin in all areas.  Along comes a donor who will donate, but only to Area A and no other area.  Fine and dandy.  The donor-restricted funds are put into the budget for Area A, and gen-op funds originally slated for Area A can be used elsewhere.  That is fungibility and explains how our tax dollars WILL be used for abortion should the federal budget fund Planned Parenthood.

Let's also consider the fact that while there have been failed attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, a vote now would be the first vote taken in the wake of the revelations provided by the Center for Medical Progress.  My opinion is that the GOP leadership in both houses should force floor votes and be prepared to use legitimate procedural means to forestall Democratic attempts to stymie votes.  That does mean that the leadership would have to develop some backbones, for over these past few years they have shown themselves to be quite feckless (actually worse than that, and I'll deal with that topic later in the next paragraph).  In bringing the matter of PP funding to the floor for a vote, each and every Representative and Senator will go on record for his/her vote in the wake of the horrific scandal of Planned Parenthood's sale of the babies whom it routinely murders.  Let any votes for Planned Parenthood be used by pro-life candidates as prima facae evidence why those Congresspeople should not win their next elections.  Should the bill reach the White House for Obama's veto, let that be a campaign issue as well.

As I read Father's article, it seems he wrote this before Boehner announced his resignation as Speaker of the House.  Over the past few years, his wielding of the gavel has been an abysmal disappointment and I daresay betrayal for while he played the groveling coward before the Democrats in Congress, he was actually quite ruthless towards the tea-party members of his own party.  To add insult to injury, it is reported that Boehner will use his final days as speaker to collude with Pelosi in ramming into the budget everything desired by the Obama cartel: Planned Parenthood funding, Iran deal, etc.

I'm also not entirely certain that conservatives in Congress are all that powerless.  If that were so, Boehner would have felt no impetus to resign.  But now comes the news that GOP officials in high places are suggesting that Senate Leader Mitch McConnell also resign.  This comes from Roger Villere, chairman of the Louisiana GOP.  He sees that many conservatives are no longer content with the measly little crumbs that the RINOs throw at us and that we don't intend to have our concerns and values treated like so many pawns in a chess game.

If we can do this sort of cage-rattling within the echelons of RINO leadership, we can give the PP defunding another attempt.  Dan Bongino wrote his own piece explaining why he too believes that there is a moral imperative to put up more of a fight than the one we are currently offering at this time.  If a reasonable budget without the Planned Parenthood funding is put before Obama's desk and he vetoes it, the onus of obstructionism is on him.  And by the way, if the Dems should snark on the GOP for "shutting down the government", one might wonder what they'd think about this stunt from one of their own who is considered "presidential material".

Paul Ryan - GOP Candidate For VP

To get an idea of Mr Ryan's abilities, watch this (here if you can't see embedded video).


The vice-presidential debates will be a delight to watch!  But one must have some pity not only on Biden, but also those poor little "nuns on the bus".  Think of it - they traipse all over the country whining about Ryan's budget - only to see him picked for the Number 2 spot on the GOP ticket!  I bet George Soros isn't very happy to see that bus trip wasted.

And yes, Paul Ryan is pro-life - and Catholic too!

An Interview With Bishop Morlino

On Thursday I touched a bit on Bishop Morlino of Madison Wisconsin.  He made the news because of his defense of his traditionalist parish priests against subterfuge by liberal/dissident parishioners.  In that post I linked to an earlier post showing how he took exception to the USCCB support of the public union workers against Governor Walker.

I applaud Bishop Morlino for not being afraid to go "against the wind" (of hot air) emanating from the dark halls of the USCCB.  He has done so again in defending Rep Paul Ryan from specious charges of "going against Church teaching" lobbed at him from the USCCB.  (By the way - here's an interesting article entitled "Are Catholics Required to Support a Continually Expanding Welfare State?")

In this brief episode of an EWTN program, Bishop Morlino is interviewed on the topic of Paul Ryan, as well as the topic of Sebelius's scheduled appearance at Georgetown this coming Friday.  Click here if you cannot see embedded video.

How Bishops Insert Their Feet In Their Mouths

Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture said it quite well.  On May 4th he congratulated the bishops for taking a strong stand regarding the HHS mandate.  However he rightly points out that the bishops since then have diluted their message by issuing similar statements on matters about which good Catholics can disagree, e.g., the federal budget, immigration, etc.

We know that when the bishops treat issues of intrinsic morality as just a few among a whole laundry list of "issues" that are, morally speaking, of less import, that dissident politicians can glom onto those latter issues to make themselves appear to be faithful.  Such is the case with the rabidly pro-abortion Vice President Joe Biden.  Because Rep Paul Ryan's budget proposal calls for social program cuts (along the lines of the principle of subsidiarity), many of the progressive-leaning bishops frown upon it.  Biden has decided to jump on that bandwagon, scolding Ryan for "violating Catholic social teaching".  Stop laughing!  Bishop Biden is very, very serious - don't you understand?  He says to Ryan that the budget is "contrary to the social doctrine my church teaches".   Quick!  Where's the ACLU when you need them to screech about "separation of church and state"?  Nah - I don't hear them, either!

"The social doctrine which his church teaches" states that the murder of babies is always intrinsically wrong.  No one can call himself a faithful Catholic who lends support to that evil, as Biden continues to do, to this day.  On the other hand, good Catholics can disagree as to how best to aid the poor.  The so-called "safety net" that the government offers is one of fatal entanglement.

Paul Ryan, whose voting record is pro-life, is stating his case quite plainly that his budget proposal is sound and moral.  Town Hall has a piece detailing that Ryan is not taking these insults sitting down;  he is challenging his opponents to stop measuring compassion by how much we spend. Read it and watch the video of Ryan.  If you cannot see the embedded video, click here.

Introducing - Johnny Cashless!!

Click here if you can't see embedded video.

USCCB Weighs In On Budget Issues, Encourages Raising Our Taxes

The USCCB is getting quite blatant about their left-wing proclivities; they are barely couching their goals in sanctimoneous language anymore.  It might as well be they who are sitting across the table from John Boehner rather than Reid, Pelosi et al, as they say pretty much the same thing (obligatory nod to the unborn aside).  Read this letter that they released yesterday.  By the way - should the link mysteriously "break", please advise via comment, as I have taken the precaution of saving it to my computer.

Pay attention to the part in bold. Get a load of the "shared sacrifice".  Particularly notice the part about "raising adequate revenues".  You know what that means, right?  That's thinly-disguised language for "taxing our livelihoods away"!  There are no revenues adequate for all the social engineering that these progressives (and I mean the USCCB!) want to foist on this country.  They think that it is the task of the Federal government to take care of all the world's poor.  Ladies and gentlemen, even if it were constitutional (and it isn't!) it isn't a realistic expectation to place on the US government - nor its citizens via "raising adequate revenues".

Let's get down to brass tacks here.  The USCCB fools no one.  All they are doing is trying to give some "moral veneer" to the profligate spending of their Democratic taskmasters and moral cover to levy astronomical taxes upon US citizens.  This letter that they released yesterday is a disgraceful, utter sham.

Perversions Of Social Justice

Keep in mind the Vortex episode from Wed July 6 as I expound upon the following two matters:

1) On the same day, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Relief Services weighed in on the budget situation in Congress.  They are commenting on the Foreign Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2012.  I'm sure you can guess.  They are warning against budget cuts for various programs for poor people in the world.  While I certainly don't doubt that there is real suffering out there, I do doubt the USCCB's and CRS's grasp of economic realities.  The simple truth is this: we don't have the money.  We are printing funny-money and borrowing to the whazoo, threatening the well-being of our own progeny.  Do the USCCB and CRS care about that?  Such doesn't even make one appearance in their whinings.  What does make its startling appearance in their statements is this claim, and I quote, "poverty and hopelessness can provide a fertile ground for the growth of terrorism."   Now consider the reality of that statement - or lack thereof, I should say.  No one doubts that terrorism requires money, and lots of it.  Why, the terrorists have to be trained, have to be given weapons, perhaps transported to their targets.  That doesn't even touch upon the research, planning, etc that is probably done to plan a strike.  So these indigent people have no money to procure basic necessities for themselves and their families, but they'll have money to go shooting up people, blowing themselves up, etc?  Such are the fuzzy pipe-dreams that pass for thinking inside these "professional catholyc" enclaves such as the USCCB and the CRS.

Circle Of Protection?? NOT!!!

Perhaps it would be more accurate to call that "Circus of Pandering". 

Here are some quotes, from the USCCB site.  "We are also committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people. Therefore, we join with others to form a Circle of Protection around programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad."

Let's unpack that - shall we?  Let's look at "resisting budget cuts".  Ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the policies of the Messiah Most Miserable (and yes, the profligate spending that did precede him), there isn't the money to keep doling out willy-nilly.  If these "religious leaders" are going to ascribe to the federal government the moral responsibility to meet the needs of the poor, how do they think the government will finance all these programs?  Who will pay for them?  Hint!  Go look in the mirrror!  That's right!  You and I will be taxed - in fact, are being taxed - to the wazzoo.  Who else is being bled to death by taxes?  The poor!  Maybe they aren't paying much income tax (at least not yet), but they are taxed via sales tax, gas tax, etc.  Moreover, businesses are paying onorous taxes too, with dollars that they may have used to hire some of these impovershed people.  I suspect many of these "leaders" are of good heart, but their logic and thinking is downright lousy, if not actually non-existent. 
Notice the talk of "programs that meet the essential needs of hungry and poor people at home and abroad".  Now whose task is it really to meet the real needs of the poor?  Is it that of the federal government?  As I recall various Church documents on that topic, "society" is so tasked.  However, since when are "federal government" and "society" synonymous?  Answer - they aren't!

In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII set forth the principle of subsidiarity.  Basically, that principle teaches that the fulfillment of human needs must be undertaken at the lowest level of society possible - starting with the individual.  Leo was all too aware of the tendency of centralized government to arrogate to itself all manners of inappropriate functions and to grow into a behemoth.  Our American founding fathers, although predominanty Protestant, seemed to have an instinctive grasp of that principle when they set strict limits on the scope of federal goverment in the United States Constitution - particularly the Tenth Amendment.  Today we find that many progressives, many of them occupying high offices in church structures, are attempting to grow the federal government by ascribing to it all manners of responsibility - and thus authority.

On Thursday I posted about a planned bastardization of Rerum Novarum that will be run almost exclusively by socialists.  One of the two liberal chairs of a discussion panel has, and probably still is, receiving funds from George Soros via the magazine that he edits.  These are the sorts of people whom the Amchurch bureaucracy is allowing to interpret and mutate the authentic social teachings of the Church.  This "circus/circle" is just one more manifestation.

ps HT to Pewsitter

Sen Schumer - A Constitutional Illiterate

No wonder these liberal/progressive types passed the Obama Hell Bill with a straight face!  They don't know the bare-bones basics of our constitutional system of government!  Listen to Chuck Schumer in this clip below.  He's trying to lay a guilt trip on the Republicans regarding the budget, but shows himself to be a complete ass!  You'll hear it at the 1:12 mark, where he states that the three branches of government are (try not to laugh too hysterically, although it will be hard!):

1. House
2. Senate
3. President

Click here if you can't see embedded video.



Now do you think you'll hear the mainstream media report on this?  NO!   However, if this sort of ignorance had come from Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman or any other conservative, that same mainstream media would be chortling over this for weeks on end.  Oh, by the way, the three branches of the government are:

1. Legislative
2. Executive
3. Judiciary

If you didn't know that, you'll find a link to the U.S. Constitution on the right side bar.