Children dying in Haiti, victims of food crisis

The 5-year-old teetered on broomstick legs — he weighed less than 20 pounds, even after days of drinking enriched milk. Nearby, a 4-year-old girl hung from a strap attached to a scale, her wide eyes lifeless, her emaciated arms dangling weakly.

In pockets of Haiti accessible only by donkey or foot, children are dying of malnutrition — their already meager food supply cut by a series of devastating storms that destroyed crops, wiped out livestock and sent food prices spiraling.

At least 26 severely malnourished children have died in the past four weeks in the remote region of Baie d'Orange in Haiti's southeast, aid workers said Thursday, and there are fears the toll will rise much higher if help does not come quickly to the impoverished Caribbean nation.

From the Associated Press. The rest of this tragic story can be found HERE.

An Open Letter to President-Elect Barack Obama

November 14, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama,
As American Catholics, we, the undersigned, would like to reiterate the congratulations given to you by Pope Benedict XVI. We will be praying for you as you undertake the office of President of the United States.
Wishing you much good will, we hope we will be able to work with you, your administration, and our fellow citizens to move beyond the gridlock which has often harmed our great nation in recent years. Too often, partisan politics has hampered our response to disaster and misfortune. As a result of this, many Americans have become resentful, blaming others for what happens instead of realizing our own responsibilities. We face serious problems as a people, and if we hope to overcome the crises we face in today’s world, we should make a serious effort to set aside the bitterness in our hearts, to listen to one another, and to work with one another.
One of the praiseworthy elements of your campaign has been the call to end such partisanship. You have stated a desire to engage others in dialogue. With you, we believe that real achievement comes not through the defamation of one’s opponents, nor by amassing power and using it merely as a tool for one’s own individual will. We also believe dialogue is essential. We too wish to appeal to the better nature of the nation. We want to encourage people to work together for the common good. Such action can and will engender trust. It may change the hearts of many, and it might alter the path of our nation, shifting to a road leading to a better America. We hope this theme of your campaign is realized in the years ahead.
One of the critical issues which currently divides our nation is abortion. As you have said, no one is for abortion, and you would agree to limit late-term abortions as long as any bill which comes your way allows for exceptions to those limits, such as when the health of the mother is in jeopardy. You have also said you would like to work on those social issues which cause women to feel as if they have a need for an abortion, so as to reduce the actual number of abortions being performed in the United States.
Indeed, you said in your third presidential debate, “But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’”
As men and women who oppose abortion and embrace a pro-life ethic, we want to commend your willingness to engage us in dialogue, and we ask that you live up to your promise, and engage us on this issue.
There is much we can do together. There is much that we can do to help women who find themselves in difficult situations so they will not see abortion as their only option. There is much which we can do to help eliminate those unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion.
One of your campaign promises is of grave concern to many pro-life citizens. On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, when speaking of the current right of women in America to have abortions, you said, “And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) might well undermine your engagement of pro-life Americans on the question of abortion. It might hamper any effort on your part to work with us to limit late-term abortions. We believe FOCA does more than allow for choice. It may force the choice of a woman upon others, and make them morally complicit in such choice. One concern is that it would force doctors and hospitals which would otherwise choose not to perform abortions to do so, even if it went against their sacred beliefs. Such a law would undermine choice, and might begin the process by which abortion is enforced as a preferred option, instead of being one possible choice for a doctor to practice.
It is because of such concern we write. We urge you to engage us, and to dialogue with us, and to do so before you consider signing this legislation. Let us reason together and search out the implications of FOCA. Let us carefully review it and search for contradictions of those positions which we hold in common.If FOCA can be postponed for the present, and serious dialogue begun with us, as well as with those who disagree with us, you will demonstrate that your administration will indeed be one that rises above partisanship, and will be one of change. This might well be the first step toward resolving an issue which tears at the fabric of our churches, our political process, our families, our very society, and that causes so much hardship and heartache in pregnant women.
Likewise, you have also recently stated you might over-ride some of President G.W. Bush’s executive orders. This is also a concern to us. We believe doing so without having a dialogue with the American people would undermine the political environment you would like to establish. Among those issues which concern us are those which would use taxpayer money to support actions we find to be morally questionable, such as embryonic stem cell research, or to fund international organizations that would counsel women to have an abortion (this would make abortion to be more than a mere choice, but an encouraged activity).
Consider, sir, your general promise to the American people and set aside particular promises to a part of your constituency. This would indicate that you plan to reject politics as usual. This would indeed be a change we need.
Sincerely,
Deal W. Hudson
Christopher Blosser
Marjorie Campbell
Mark J. Coughlan
Rev. James A. Nowack
Craig D. Baker
Susan DeBoisblanc
Megan Stout
Joshua D. Brumfield
Ashley M. Brumfield
Michael J. Iafrate
Natalie Navarro
Matthew Talbot
Paul Mitchell
Todd Flowerday
Henry C Karlson III

Adam P Verslype
Josiah Neeley
Michael J. Deem
Katerina M. Deem
Natalie Mixa
Henry Newman
Anthony M. Annett
Mickey Jackson
Veronica Greenwell
Thomas Greenwell PhD
Robert C. Koerpel
Nate Wildermuth

New, Online Signatures:
William Simon
Deacon Keith Fournier
Mary Ruebelmann-Benavides
Jesus Benavides
Steve Dillard
Toby Danna
William Eunice
Mark Shea
Fr. Phil Bloom
Christopher Gant
Robert King, OP.
Peter HalabuKelly Clark
Eric Giunta
Mark Gordon
Linda Schuldt
Michael Mlekoday
Bryan McLaughlin
Victoria Hoffman
Jonathan Jones
Jim Janknegt
Marcel LeJeune
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
Ken Hallenius III
Zach Gietl
Megan Bless
Kathy Myers
Timothy M. Mason
Kevin Koster
John Anthony D’Arpino
Brian Desmarais
Mary C. Borneman
Sylwia Matlosz
Stephen Lewis
Susan Boedefeld
David Turner
Fr. Loren W. Gonzales
Barbara Emge
Adam Mateo Fierro
Matthew Hardesty
Mark DeFrancisis
Heather Barrett
Sally Hultgren
Esther C. Gefroh
Brian Murphy
Joe A. Potillor, Jr.
Daniel H. Conway
Andrea Brown
Allan Hebert
Brandon Charles Markey
Chris Altieri
Nick van Zee
Chad Toney
Michael Enright
Susan Windley-Daoust
Lisa Pieson
Lisa Commerford
Erica Ford
David Nickol
John Elfering
Paul Zummo
Alena Chovanec
Brian T. Coughlin
Darren Krakowski
Anthony F. Miller
Joe Schriner
Clayton Emmer
Thomas L. McDonald
Justin Nickelsen
Joseph S. Arena
Nicholas J. Hardesty
Eric McIntosh



Cross-posted at:
DealWHudson (Theocon)
Inside Catholic
The Hopeful Populist
Catholic Anarchy
American Catholic
Gift of Self
Adam V’s Blog
Thoughts of a Regular Guy
Against the Grain
Defending My Bean Field
Bound and Free
Suicide of the West
Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate
Southern Appeal
Full Circle
One Nation Under God
Dyspeptic Mutterings
The Cranky Conservative
Astonished, Yet at Home!
Laughter and Humility
Catholic and Enjoying It
The Catholic Liberal
Ad Saeculum
The Lady in the Pew
Pansy and Peony
Confessions of a Liberal Traditionalist
James B. Janknegt’s Weblog
Aggie Catholics
What Does the Prayer Really Say
100% of Your RDA of Ken
Yellow Blog Journalism
The Black Biretta
The Rockin’ Traddy
The Holy Cookie
Overheard in the Sacristy
The School of Mary
The Practicing Catholic
A Catholic Mom in Hawaii
Verbum Veritatis
This Old Church: Behind Enemy Lines
Catholic Mountain
The Lazy Disciple
The Weight of Glory
PhatCatholic Apologetics

Media Coverage
Catholic News Agency
Catholic Online

Obama's Idea of "Change"

Saw this on Politico today, via Yahoo:

Here's how you can tell the campaign is over and the transition has begun: Barack Obama's aides now wear suits and ties, their desks are in the Federal Building on 6th Street in Washington — and Clintonites are everywhere. [snip]
Thirty-one of the 47 people so far named to transition or staff posts have ties to the Clinton administration, including all but one of the members of his 12-person Transition Advisory Board and both of his White House staff choices.

I guess if by change he meant a change back to the 90's, then he was right. Within the first year, a lot of people are going to fuming that they've been sold a bill of goods. Obama is not going to deliver on his promis of change. HE CAN'T. He never took the time to tell anyone what he talking about. All he kept going on about was change, and hope, and things being better. He was never so foolish as to define it. That may work well for his Socialist heroes, but thank God that in this country we get an election every four years. And don't forget mid-term elections between that. Change is coming alright...

Activists attack Mormon Churches

The AP is reporting today that Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City have received envelopes containing a white powder, clearly intended to recall the anthrax attacks of 2001, and intimidate the Mormon Chuch for its efforts to prevent homosexuals from attempting to marry in California. Excerpt:

Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

[snip]

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

Aren't these the people demanding tolerance? Care to show any evidence of it? As always, the only view to be tolerated is the liberal agenda. The rest of us are closed-minded bigots. My favorite line comes at the end:

Authorities are looking into several theories on who sent the letters and why.

Seriously? Not sure why? My hope is that's meant to mean which particular homosexual activist group did it. They need someone to lash out against, and the Mormons seem to be the target of choice. What about Obama's mandate of "change"? Doesn't that apply to them? Doesn't the democratic will of the people count for anything?
These people are driven by hatred. There is nothing that is beneath them in this fight. I predict there is more of this to come.

No communion for Obama supporters

A South Carolina priest is making headlines for telling those in his parish who voted for Obama that they shouldn't receive Communion until after they've confessed their sin in the Sacrament of Penance. As always, the MSM is alarmed. Honestly, I don't see why.

No Obama supporter can truly call themselves Catholic. This goes beyond any partisan differences. Obama is a staunch and unrepentant supporter of abortion on demand. Anyone who supports that has, in fact, rejected the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why then would they want to receive Communion? If for no other reason than that it's a visible sign of their unity with the teachings of the Church? I would think they'd want to be as far from that as possible.

The only reason I can imagine is that it's a cultural thing. They grew up Catholic, their family is Catholic, and they'll always see themselves that way. But the plain fact is that they're not. I humbly suggest that they do the honroable thing, and leave the Church. There are plenty of Protestant denominations that would match their thinking. Some even have an imitation of Holy Communion so it can still "feel" like home. (Isn't that what's really important, anyway?)

I'd hate to see anyone walk away from the grace found in the Catholic Church, but they've already done it. I just ask them to be honest about it. Don't be so arrogant as to think you're going to change 2000 years of consistent Church teaching to suit your twisted agenda.

So do we worship science, or not??

From the AP:

A first-of-its-kind measure in Colorado, which was defeated soundly, would have
defined life as beginning at conception.

The biological sciences have known and taught for decades that life begins at conception. How can a civil law possibly refute that? I'm trying to keep up here: science is infallible in describing the origins of the universe, but not in defining the origin of a person? Am I missing something here?

Milestone?

It amazes me (not surprises, amazes) that almost every article on Obama's election focuses on his race? Was that really the goal? To elect a black man, even if of mixed race? So are we done with race as a dividing issue now? Is it put to rest? Why is there so little talk of his actual policies? Is it because he has none? Is it because he speaks so eloquently of "change", without ever defining it? So he can be all things to all people?

Well, he got it. Now the free ride ends. He's going to have to take a stand on something besides killing babies (although he'll stick with that stand). I think Democrats are going to see that he's not the panacea they hoped for. Only Jesus is, yet they still seem to be a little confused on identity there. After the Democratic hangover wears off, they're going have to ask themselves tough questions about why their man hasn't delivered on his promises, on their expectations. There will be plenty of excuses, plenty of continued Bush-blaming, but the bottom line is that the change they seek will not occur. The exception of course is on life issues. Regrettably, there will be plenty of losers in that regard.

Blacks in particular are giddy that a black man has finally been elected. But what happens when they realize that he isn't going to help them? That his welfare policies will continue to keep the ghettos full. That his abortion policies will continue to kill their future, literally. That those same policies will encourage the view of women as objects.

The disappoint will come. But none of the blame will be his. Yes, we have a black president. But do we have a good one? I don't care what the President looks like on the outside. I'm concerned with what he's made of inside.

P.S. - Why did we never see this kind of support for Alan Keyes? Keyes would make an excellent president, regardless of the color of his skin.