Reflections on Faith and Culture

Analyze This: Allahu Akbar

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:06:00 +0000

"It's unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting," said Chris Matthews.

"Allahu Akbar," screamed Major Hasan as he opened fire on innocent people, killing 13 and crippling many others.

Yes, yes, anyone knows (and must ritually reiterate) that most Muslims are good, decent citizens, etc. etc.

All this goes without saying, but if one doesn't say it at every mention of the Islamic threat one is automatically regarded as morally comparable to a terrorist. Sigh . . .

But the same could have been said about German Americans in the late 1940s. That didn't change what a great many other Germans were doing to Europe and threatening to do to the rest of the world.

“U.S. Homeland Security officials are working with groups around the United States to head off any possible anti-Muslim backlash following the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

”To which the columnist Mona Charen (here) responded: "Hogwash."

The backlash trope is trotted out after every episode of terrorist violence. But it is as false as it is dangerous. This image of a nation on a hair trigger for violence against Muslims is a calumny. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, though millions were inflamed by grief and outrage, there was no broad-based “backlash” against Muslim Americans. ...

The repeated invocation of this libel has had an effect, though. It has succeeded in intimidating many Americans about the proper bounds of discussion. General Casey reinforces this timidity when he frets that “our diversity” may be a casualty of the attack at Fort Hood. He and the Obama administration are obscuring the real challenge Americans face.

Our challenge is not to transcend the demons of vengeance clawing at our souls. Our challenge is to deal intelligently with a threat that arises from religious convictions. Non-bigoted observers can see that while the vast majority of the world’s Muslims are not extremists, a significant minority are. And it matters what people believe.

We don’t like to pass judgment on others’ religious convictions. That’s fine. But when a religious belief spurs violence and mass murder, it becomes political, and it becomes a proper concern of the military and security services.

Worldwide, Muslims believing themselves to be advancing the faith have committed more than 14,000 acts of violence just since 9/11. You know the litany: Madrid, London, Bali, Jerusalem, Mumbai, Amman. The list is long and bloody — and it includes many innocent Muslims.

Federal agents have thwarted planned terror attacks on Fort Dix, N.J., folded up a terror ring in Lackawanna, N.Y., and uncovered plots against the nation’s financial centers, the World Bank, the Sears Tower, the New York subway system, the Los Angeles airport, the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles, ten airliners landing in the U.S. (the liquid-bomb plot), JFK airport, the Brooklyn Bridge, and the Prudential Building in Newark, N.J., among others. ...

We have created a climate in which members of the military were afraid to raise questions about the bald and blatant Islamist comments Major Nidal Hassan expressed over many years. He was overheard saying “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.” He was caught proselytizing his patients. ... Yet no one raised a red flag. Might be interpreted as anti-Muslim bigotry. And so the military took no action against a man who loudly advertised his extremist sympathies. Thirteen Americans paid for that with their lives.

If any good were to come out of the Fort Hood massacre it would be a new clarity about what we are fighting. Islamism is the enemy. Moderate Muslims are allies in the cause. We should no more shrink from confronting and battling Islamism than we would from any of the “isms” we destroyed in the 20th century.

Many of my friends have decided that charity and concern for victims means being more concerned about the vastly overstated specter of a "backlash" against their co-religionists than about the very real threat to completely innocent people posed by Islamic fanatics.

Andrew McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, has a comment here:

The FBI and the rest of our Islamophilic government have their story, and they’re sticking to it. The terrorists’ siege on our nation has nothing to do with Islam. It is the work of al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda terrorists — so the catechism goes — are not true Muslims. Sure, Osama bin Laden & Co. accurately quote Islamic scriptural injunctions to wage jihad against non-Muslims. But never mind that: Islam is an irenic, unmitigated good; in fact, it is one of our best weapons against terrorism.

Come again? If all the terrorists are Muslims and all the terrorists say scriptures that plainly command killing are inspiring them to kill, how could Islam be an asset? Don’t go spoiling a feel-good theory by asking a lot of questions — that would be almost like an investigation, and when it comes to Islam, the FBI doesn’t do investigation.

If it did, it might stumble onto all sorts of things we’d just as soon not know. We’d have to start acknowledging that Salafist ideology (the strain of Islam endorsed by the Muslim Brotherhood and Sunni terrorist organizations) is prevalent in American mosques. ...

To stop bad things from happening, you have to come to grips with what causes them. We won’t. ... And with Hasan, the biggest challenge was not whether to investigate an infiltrator wearing a neon “Islamist” sign, but how to promote him up the ladder and burnish our diversity cred while intimidating the suspicious into silence.

Sometimes one has to laugh to keep from crying. This is no laughing matter, and I will be labeled an Islamophobe for this link, but maybe a little well aimed humor can bring us to our senses:

Here it comes.

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:16:00 +0000

My former congresswoman:

I expect political hardball on any legislation as important as the health care bill.

I just didn’t expect it from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

Who elected them to Congress?

The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy.

They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure.

And this political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status. When I visit churches in my district, we are very careful to keep everything “non-political” to protect their tax-exempt status.

The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections.

Given the political behavior of USCCB in this case, maybe it shouldn’t be.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) is co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Here is comes.

In an extended reflection I am now preparing, I quote the passage in T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land where he parodies the culture's turn away from its Christian roots. In the passage Madam Sosostris ("famous clairvoyante ... with a wicked pack of cards") declares herself unable to find "the Hanged Man" -- the Crucified One.

Among the things I say about this passage is that "the world which turns its back on the Hanged Man will not long remain neutral toward the religion that turns its face toward him."

As I say, here it comes.

Jody Bottum of First Things:

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:21:00 +0000

Why is the United States doing this? Why are we trying to create a bureaucracy with a $3 trillion price tag, at a time of deep financial trouble? Why are we aiming at governmental management of a huge sector of the American economy at a time when the government is proving itself incompetent to manage the American economy? And why are we giving the culture of Washington new powers of life and death—making ourselves “God’s Partners,” in President Obama’s language—at a time when that culture has proved itself so vague and so deluded about all the issues of life and death that have come before it: war, and embryos, and the unborn, and the weak, and the vulnerable?

That the health-care system in the United States is inequitable seems undeniable. That it is amazingly innovative and robust is also undeniable. The great goal of competent government would be to cure the one and preserve the other. The bill the House of Representatives passed this weekend will do neither.

The whole piece is here.

The Untold Stories of Israel's Martyrs

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:12:00 +0000

Sandro Magister has this piece at Chiesa:

For the first time ever, in a book, depictions of the victims of Islamist hatred. Young and old, men and women. Struck down in a bus, at a bar, at the market. Killed solely for the "fault" of being Jewish

ROME, November 9, 2009 – Today Jews all over the world are commemorating their martyrs of the "Night of Broken Glass," the victims of the Nazi pogrom on the night of November 9-10, 1938, in Germany.

There is universal, mournful observance of that massacre and of the tremendous extermination of Jews by the Reich that came after it.

But the same is not done, in Europe and the West, for the many other Jewish victims who for years have been killed in Israel, assailed by Islamic terrorism.

Every time one of them is killed, it is covered in the news and then immediately ignored. The victim ends up buried in the vagueness of the "Palestinian question," viewed by many as Israel's "fault."

Meanwhile, one out of every three hundred Israeli families has been directly affected by an attack. The terrorist actions number in the thousands. More than 150 suicide attacks have been carried out, and for each of these the Israeli police estimate that they have prevented nine more. 1,723 people have been killed to date, 378 of them women. More than ten thousand have been injured.

The indifference of the West and of Christians in the face of this steady stream of victims, struck systematically in the midst of their daily routine, on the buses, in the cafes, in the markets, at home, now has a response in a book that recounts their stories for the first time. It finally tells us who they are.

The book was published a month ago in Italy, and translations will soon be published in New York and London. Its title is "Non smetteremo di danzare [We will not stop dancing]." And the subtitle: "Le storie mai raccontate dei martiri di Israele [The untold stories of Israel's martyrs]."

The author, Giulio Meotti, is already known to the readers of www.chiesa for two in-depth reports that have received extensive attention: on the most Islamified city in Europe, Rotterdam, and on the "Hilltop Youth," the latest generation of Israeli settlers.

His most recent book opens with a preface by English philosopher Roger Scruton, and with a letter by Robert Redeker, the French writer who has been living in a secret location since he began receiving death threats from Islamist fanatics.

Magister has an extract from the first chapter here.

Another Anniversary . . . Kristallnacht

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:11:00 +0000

Berlin Synagogue
Kristallnacht: November 9, 1938

Jewish Shop
Kristallnacht: November 9, 1938

Twenty years ago today the Berlin Wall fell and millions were liberated from communist tyranny. But today is another anniversary: Kristallnacht, the beginning of the Nazi slaughter of European Jews. Here are the first paragraphs of Rober Wistrich's article about it in the Brussels Journal:

On November 9, 1938, a massive nation-wide anti-Jewish pogrom took place during peacetime across the entire territory of the Third Reich. The pretext for this orgy of violence against German Jews was the shooting in Paris two days earlier of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a 17-year-old Polish-Jewish refugee. The state-organized pogrom, instigated by Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, resulted in the burning or damaging of more than a thousand synagogues; the ransacking of about 7,500 businesses, the murder of at least 91 Jews, and the deportation of another 30,000 Jewish males to concentration camps in Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen. This murderous onslaught against German Jewry, cynically described by the Nazis as the “Night of Broken Glass” (Kristallnacht), was a major turning point on the road to the “Final Solution” of the so-called “Jewish Question.” It signified that the Nazi regime had crossed a Rubicon and would no longer be deterred by Western public opinion in its “war against the Jews.” The economic expropriation of German Jewry, its complete social ostracism and public humiliation swiftly followed. Jews were banned from public transport, from frequenting concerts, theaters, cinemas, commercial centers, beaches, or using public benches. Only a fortnight after “Crystal Night,” the SS journal, Das Schwarze Korps, chillingly prophesied the final end of German Jewry through “fire and sword” and its imminent complete annihilation.

Today the specter of such apocalyptic anti-Semitism has returned to haunt Europe and other continents, while often assuming radically new forms. In the Middle East, it has taken on a particularly dangerous, toxic and potentially genocidal aura of hatred, closely linked to the “mission” of holy war or jihad against the West and the Jews.

Islamist anti-Semitism is thoroughly soaked in many of the most inflammatory themes that initially made possible the atrocities of “Crystal Night” and its horrific aftermath during the Holocaust -- for example, the pervasive use of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with its perennial theme of the “Jewish conspiracy for world domination;” or the medieval blood-libel imported to the Muslim world from Christian Europe; or the vile stereotypical image of the Jews as a treacherous, rapacious, and bloodthirsty people engaged in a ceaseless plotting to undermine the world of Islam. To these grotesque inventions one must add such more up-to-date libels as Holocaust denial which has become a state-sponsored project in Ahmadinejad’s Iran and is increasingly pervasive in the Arab world.

The whole piece is here.

The obstacles ahead . . .

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:52:00 +0000

An update from Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life:

The pro-life Democrats and Republicans took a stand for the sanctity of life by passing the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment on a vote of 240 to 194. This amendment prohibits the use of federal dollars to fund abortion in health care.

This victory is a step toward a future where both political parties defend Life.

But one victory does not mean the battle is won.

Yesterday’s rhetoric from the Democratic leadership indicates an intention to subvert the bipartisan pro-life majority. We are deeply concerned that Democratic leadership intends to undermine this victory that reflects the will of an overwhelming majority of Americans.

The battle will move quickly over to the Senate. We all have to take a deep breath and refocus our efforts toward watching the final language of the Senate bill to ensure that pro-life protections remain in the final health care bill.

While we applaud the passage of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, serious concerns about H.R. 3962 remain. The Rules Committee did not permit amendments to address concerns about conscience protection, the use of comparative effectiveness research and end of life provisions.

More here.

What the Wall Stree Journal called: "the worst bill ever."

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:01:00 +0000

I must say I agree completely.

Hat tip: Athos

Sunday Morning Thoughts . . . on Church

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:53:00 +0000

A human subject, inasmuch as he becomes a theological person by a unique call and mission, is simultaneously deprivatized, socialized, and made the location and the bearer of community. -- Hans Urs von Balthasar

In his Theo-Drama (Vol. II), von Balthasar writes: "Human community and the immediate relation of each individual to God are inseparable from each other."

Which Cardinal Marc Ouellet succinctly sums up in a paper on von Balthasar's Christian ethics, where he writes that von Balthasar "advances beyond the Protestant individualism of justification by faith and the Catholic individualism of merit by recovering the essential implication of community in the occurrence of grace."

Which reminds me of a summary of my own: One cannot know God fully without knowing Christ. (Even though some who do not know Christ may well know God better than some who do, they cannot know God fully without knowing Christ, and -- more to the point -- him crucified.) And one cannot know Christ fully without the Church. (Though, again, some who stand outside the Church may well know Christ better than some of its members; nonetheless, one cannot know Christ fully without the Church.)

Just some Sunday morning thoughts, for what they're worth.

This just in . . . so to speak

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:15:00 +0000

By the power invested in me as the president of the Cornerstone Forum (a minuscule power, let me assure you), I hereby announce a new Cornerstone Forum catechetical principle. It is, wonder of wonders, from Hans Urs von Balthasar:

Grateful Astonishment Refutes Barren Ruminating.

Uphill on the HIll

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:32:00 +0000

From Americans United for Life:

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) stated on the House floor that all three Chairmen of the Committees of jurisdiction, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee George Miller (D-CA), and Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel (D-NY) refused to offer assurances that they would support the House passed language that includes the Stupak-Pitts amendment during the House and Senate conference. Boehner urged Members considering a “yes” vote on final passage if the Stupak-Pitts amendment were passed, to reconsider their support in light of the Chairmens’ efforts to undermine the Stupak-Pitts agreement during conference.

What's worse than worst?

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:35:00 +0000

My friend Jill Fallon has a good roundup about what the Wall Street Journal calls "the worst bill ever" -- the Heath Care bill being debated at this moment in the House.
Jill's post is here.

Finding Candor Whevever It Can Be Found

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:12:00 +0000

Mark Steyn:

In the New York Times, Maria Newman touched on Hasan’s faith only obliquely: “He was single, according to the records, and he listed no religious preference.” Thank goodness for that, eh? A neighbor in Texas says the major had “Allah” and “another word” pinned up in Arabic on his door. “Akbar” maybe? On Thursday morning he is said to have passed out copies of the Koran to his neighbors. He shouted in Arabic as he fired. But don’t worry: As the FBI spokesman assured us in nothing flat, there’s no terrorism angle.

That’s true, in a very narrow sense: Major Hasan is not a card-carrying member of the Texas branch of al-Qaeda reporting to a control officer in Yemen or Waziristan. If he were, things would be a lot easier. But the pathologies that drive al-Qaeda beat within Major Hasan too, and in the end his Islamic impulses trumped his expensive Western education, his psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American identity. One might say the same about Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale, Ariz., arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized” daughter Noor in the latest American honor killing. Or the two U.S. residents — one American, one Canadian — arrested a few days earlier for plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. But Noor Almaleki’s brother shrugs that’s just the way it is. “One thing to one culture doesn’t make sense to another culture,” he says.

Indeed. To infidels, Islam is in a certain sense unknowable, and most of us are content to leave it at that. The vast majority of Muslims don’t conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of their fellow soldiers. But Islam inspires enough of this behavior to make it a legitimate topic of analysis. Don’t hold your breath. We’d rather talk about anything else — even in the Army.

Here's what is so distressing: Robert Spencer is unquestionably one of the West's preeminent experts on the Qur'an and the history of Islam. Like many of us, his frustration at the refusal of officialdom and the mainstream media to deal honestly with the issue of Islamic fanaticism is palpable. It is never, as far as I know, shrill. But when someone yells "fire," before we object to the alarmist tone we should check to see if there's actually something burning.

Anyway, what frustrates me today is that the only link to Robert Spencer's comment below -- which, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, should unquestionably be part of the public conversation -- as I say, the only link to Spencer is from the radio program of Michael Savage. I have never listened to Savage, but I suspect he would be tarred with the brush of right-wingism and therefore ignored. The problem -- my frustration -- is that these days one can only find intelligent remarks such as those Spencer makes in this audio on outlets like Savage's.

I long for the day when one could find them on CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and . . . wan hope indeed, MSNBC. Until that happy day arrives, we have to find honesty and candor where it can be found.

The struggle will continue . . .

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:30:00 +0000

This from Creative Minority Report:

CAREFUL WHAT YOUR WISH FOR

The immediate reaction to news that Pelosi will allow an up or down vote on the Stupak amendment prohibiting funding abortion in the healthcare bill is to view it as a victory. We should be careful what we wish for.

Pelosi clearly does not have enough votes to pass the bill without the pro-life Dems on board. If it fails, then most likely some of the pro-life Dems will say, "Oh well, we tried" and vote for final passage of the full bill, abortion and all.

But if the Stupak amendment passes, we are clearly not out of the woods. In all likelihood, Pelosi would be able to cajole the radical pro-abortion Dems in the house to go along for now. The Senate does not care about abortion so their version of the bill will not include language similar to the Stupak amendment. The Stupak language would then likely be stripped in the reconciliation process and sent back for final passage.

At that point, no more amendments are permitted. Having the cover of having voted against abortion in the up/down Stupak vote, Pelosi might very well have enough votes to get final passage, abortion and all. They will say things like "Well I voted against the funding of abortion. But that is not possible now. The bill is not perfect, but people are suffering and so I will vote for final passage."

Clearly the Stupak amendment is a good thing as it is the only option we have now save killing the bill in its entirety. But even if it passes, federally funded abortion is not dead. The only way to prevent it is to kill the bill, once and for all.

If Stupak passes today, our work is just beginning.

Posted by Patrick Archbold here.

Update: Abortion in Health Care

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:55:00 +0000

Latest update from Americans United for Life:

An editorial in the Washington Post today asserted, “The controversy over abortion funding is similarly phony. Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered. The House bill would leave that restriction in place. It would exclude abortion from the list of benefits that plans participating in the insurance exchange would be required to offer. Instead, the exchanges would have to include one plan that covers abortion, along with one that doesn’t. Even so, the plans that cover abortion would have to take steps to make sure that federal funds are segregated from those used to pay for abortions.”

The only thing “phony” about the abortion funding controversy are these repeated misleading statements claiming the bills in Congress, as proposed, would not use federal dollars to fund abortion.

“Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is endangered. The House bill would leave that restriction in place.”

The prohibition on federal funding of abortion, the Hyde Amendment, does not apply to H.R. 3962.

In fact, the abortion funding language of H.R. 3962 is exactly the opposite of the Hyde Amendment, which has passed every year for 33 years. Instead of codifying restrictions on abortion funding, H.R. 3962 codifies an abortion funding mandate.

The language of H.R. 3962 on its face mandates only coverage in the public option of those Hyde-permitted abortions (in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother). But, H.R. 3962 does not prohibit funding other abortions and it goes further – explicitly allowing the HHS Secretary to include all abortions in the public option. (Section 222(e)(3)). Since the decision would be made by pro-abortion HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, it is likely that Section 222(e)(3) will be used to extend the abortion funding mandate to cover all abortions.

“It would exclude abortion from the list of benefits that plans participating in the insurance exchange would be required to offer.”

While the bill would not force all private insurance plans to directly reimburse for abortion, the bill allows private health insurance plans that cover elective abortion to receive government subsidies (Section 222(e)(2)). This changes the status quo on federal funds being used towards insurance plans that provide abortion coverage.

In the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the government contributes to premiums of federal employees in order to allow them to purchase private health insurance. The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill that provides funding for the FEHB program has annually prohibited these government contributions from being used towards insurance plans that cover abortion since 1983 (with the exception of 1993-1995).

“Instead, the exchanges would have to include one plan that covers abortion, along with one that doesn’t.”

The bill does require that there be one insurance company in each region that does not directly reimburse for abortion. However, another provision of H.R. 3962 severely limits the extent an insurance company is allowed to be “pro-life.” Sec. 304(d) prevents any private insurance company participating in the Exchange from choosing not to contract with abortion providers.

Additionally, for the first time the government is mandating that there be a private insurance company that does provide abortion coverage in each region.

“Even so, the plans that cover abortion would have to take steps to make sure that federal funds are segregated from those used to pay for abortions.”

The bill includes language purporting to segregate “federal dollars” from “private dollars” that are used to pay for abortions (Sections 303(e)(2); 341(c)(3)) – but nothing alters the fact that this provision allows government dollars to go to private plans that cover abortion.

As Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) said last night in support of his amendment that would reflect the opinion of the majority of Americans and codify the restrictions of Hyde into H.R. 3962, “No federal dollars, no matter how you try to disguise it, should be used to fund abortion in this legislation.”

Latest Update: 11:45 Eastern Time Zone

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:47:00 +0000

This just in from Washington:

Moments ago, Planned Parenthood sent out a mass e-mail blast to abortion supporters calling it an EMERGENCY ...

... Here's what they're terrified of:

Late last night, the House leadership -- realizing their health care reform bill didn't have the needed votes while containing an abortion mandate -- agreed to allow a vote today on the bi-partisan pro-life amendment offered by Rep. Bart Stupak and Rep. Joe Pitts that explicitly excludes government funding of abortion in health care reform.

Your calls and e-mails made the difference to allow for this amendment which could help to save millions of lives from abortion -- and prevent Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry from receiving a massive government funded bailout!

Now, everything comes down to what's happening on the House floor right now.

Planned Parenthood is begging abortion advocates to call Congress now and "reject this attack..." by demanding opposition to the Stupak/Pitts amendment.

If they succeed and the abortion mandate is not removed from health care reform, Planned Parenthood will be sending out a victory e-mail tomorrow -- and preparing to ramp up its operations to handle the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

Even if you have called before, it is critical that you pick up the phone RIGHT NOW and tell your U.S. Representative: "Remove abortion funding and mandates from health care reform!"

If you know your Representative's name, call him or her through the House switchboard at:

(202) 224-3121

The 11th Hour . . .

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:13:00 +0000

In a surprise move after hours of tumultuous negotiations, the House Rules Committee, very early Saturday morning, approved rules for debate on the pro-abortion health care bill. Although it appeared Speaker Nancy Pelosi would deny one, it allows a vote on an amendment to remove abortion funding.

Pelosi's hand appeared to have been forced when pro-abortion House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced earlier in the day that she did not have enough votes to pass the bill because of objections from pro-life Democrats.

The committee okayed a Rule that allows the House to vote on the Stupak amendment, offered by pro-life Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat, to the health care reform legislation.

If you do not want your tax dollars funneled into the pockets of people hired to kill children in the womb, now would be a very good time to call your Congressional representative and urge a YES vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

Second Thoughts . . .

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:04:00 +0000

Martin Kozlowski had this cartoon in the November 3rd Wall Street Journal:

We'll see.

"From Democracy to Despotism"

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:41:00 +0000

Here are two short videos. I urge you to take the time to view them.

Cardinal George of Chicago:

If you haven't seen them, there are other videos on this subject below.

Tomorrow is the Vote in Congress

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:23:00 +0000

Another important video:

Abortion is IN the Health Care Bill

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:15:00 +0000

If you're as concerned about this as I am, here is an organization I visited recently in Washington. It is an extraordinary organization of very dedicated people. I urge you to visit their website and do what you can to help.

The M-word and the T-word

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:51:00 +0000

Major Nidal Malik Hasan

Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — an Arabic phrase for "God is great!" — before opening fire, the base commander said Friday.

In a video clip on the CNN website, Anderson Cooper narrates security camera footage from a convenience store where Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspected killer in the Fort Hood attack, was buying something. The video showed Major Hasan in recognizably Islamic attire. Knowing his viewers where seeing this, and therefore unable to let it pass without comment, Cooper repeatedly said that Major Hasan's was "dressed in traditional garb."

Traditional garb? What tradition? Does it matter? Is it relevant to this story or just an irrelevancy? Was Major Hasan dressed in traditional Hopi garb? Traditional Sikh garb? Where's the adjective in that sentence? Why did Cooper not say? Cooper's fellow CNN reporters were eventually obliged to utter a few of the censored terms, discretely to be sure, as though they were of no real importance to the story.

Mark Steyn:

There's something deeply weird about the media's instinctive avoidance of the M-word or the T-word and the careless abandon with which they speculate about "post-traumatic stress disorder" even as the emerging facts render it absurd . . . One can forgive the press not getting the story right in the first hours, but it will be interesting to see how honestly they cover it as the facts emerge.

Every person honest with himself knows: No one in his or her right mind thinks Anderson Cooper is an Islamophobe. (If the term means an irrational fear of Muslims, how many suffer from it? Perhaps 1% of the population). Cooper left out a not insignificant detail of the story -- an irresponsible thing for a serious journalist to do -- because he did not want to be accused of Islamphobia, or perhaps, even more shamefully, he didn't want to be thought even mildly sympathetic with more politically conservative people who might be less cavalier about Major Hasan's religious motivations.

This sort of self-censorship is almost certainly why Major Hasan's army superiors and colleagues did not raise warning flags about his behavior, which -- had it been exhibited by anyone else, would have had immediate consequences. As a result of this fear of being labeled Islamophobic, this disturbed man was apparently allowed to continue to give psychological and psychiatric counseling to troubled soldiers. Can you imagine?

The news stories refer to the fact that Major Hasan was a psychiatrist far more often than that he was a Muslim, but which is more relevant to the story?

Is all this just sensitivity? What if the shooter in this crime had been an identifiable Christian -- say a priest with a Roman collar or a Bible-belt fundamentalist with big "I love Jesus" on is sleeveless T-shirt? Would Anderson Cooper have referred to the former as dressed in traditional garb and the latter as a local mechanic?

This fear -- not of being an Islamophobe (whatever that might be) but of being accused of being one -- is a very serious form of self-censorship that is reserved for only one religious tradition today. It is unhealthy for our society. I'm as weary of elite liberal anti-Catholicism as anybody, but as long as such things can be countered with reason and persuasion, I'll take anti-Catholic slurs any day over censorship, especially the pernicious self-censored sort.

P. S.

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:45:00 +0000

The headline of Barry Rubin's piece on the politically correct spin that will the official line for the mainstream media:

Understanding the Ft. Hood Attack:

America’s the Bad Guy This I Know
Because My TV Told Me So

Read it here.

Citizens behaving themsevles with dignity

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:21:00 +0000

We live in a raucous democracy, thank goodness. We don't all agree; again, thank goodness. These are bewildering times, and no one has a crystal ball. All that said, you may not agree with the people who gathered in Washington today -- I do -- but it would be demagoguery to slander them with the standard sobriquets: right-wingers, racists, angry white men, and so on. These are obviously decent citizens who were not just looking for a good excuse to interrupt their lives for a trip to Washington. They are the kind of people who made this country great, and they deserve a hearing.

Making it Official

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:36:00 +0000

This from the London Telegraph:

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

Hat Tip: Jill Fallon at The Business of Life

Canceling AARP

gil@cornerstone-forum.org (Gil Bailie) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:53:00 +0000

To each his own, but I just canceled my AARP membership in light of today's endorsement of the current Health Care bill. Vanity would have kept me from joining in the first place, but the slight reduction in the motel rates caused me to override my vanity, but it's not enough to make me override my principles.

I have just joined the American Seniors Association, a very attractive alternative, cheap motel rates and all. If any of you over-55 folks out there are interested in doing likewise, the toll-free number for canceling AARP is 888-687-2277, and you can go here to look into an ASA membership -- $15 a year.