Category: Guest Authors

Iron Lady Thatcher: Last From A Great Era

Iron Lady Thatcher: Last From A Great Era

There is a fascinating book by Irving Stone entitled, They Also Ran, the story of men defeated for the presidency. Stone, an historian, also analyzes the races to determine if the people chose wisely.

It’s a fascinating concept, as readers are left pondering how history may have been altered had there been a different outcome.

The opposite also holds true — how history would have changed had the winner not been victorious.

Reflecting on the the passing of England’s Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, it seems obvious — for so many reasons — that the Brits did indeed choose their leader wisely. And for the most part, the world owes them a debt of gratitude for doing so, for it is far safer because of Maggie.

With both Ronald Reagan and Thatcher now gone, the pangs of sadness resonate with the ending of a golden era. For those who lived through superpower showdowns and nuclear war games, it is impossible not to give Thatcher a special place in your heart. As America’s greatest ally in the Cold War, she never wavered in looking the mightiest Evil Empire of all time right in the eye, saying, “Give me your best shot — I can take it.”

*****

Every generation has a tendency to view the past through rose-colored glasses, remembering the good times while letting the bad melt away.  It’s a human trait that allows us to move past traumatic events so that life can continue.

However, one can make a strong case that, rainbows and lollypop reminiscing aside, the 1980’s truly were a remarkable decade, an enviable time when the country was unified, evidenced by substantial electoral victories by Reagan (and Thatcher). It was an era marked by monumental events thought unthinkable just a decade prior. The malaise of the 70’s had significantly eroded people’s faith, not just in their leaders, but in themselves.  Optimism for a better tomorrow hit a brick wall in America and Britain, and for good reason: runaway inflation; interest rates of 20 percent; rationed gas; an aggressive Soviet Union; and the Iranian hostage crisis (444 days long). The pinnacle of failure came during the calamitous rescue attempt, which, in addition to the gut-wrenching loss of life, was an embarrassment of epic proportions.

It was this widespread self-doubt and loss of hope that led to the election of Reagan and Thatcher. They took the helm of a West in search of its identity, and carried the dreams of billions on their shoulders. In charting a new course, they once again lit the beacons of hope, resurrecting the West to become that famous shining City Upon A Hill.

And they succeeded. Big time.

Hostages were freed, militaries were beefed up, and economies roared back to life.  With work came prosperity — hopes and dreams were not just restored, but realized. Peace through strength became the mantra, and though that policy was wildly effective (it eventually bankrupted and destroyed the Soviet Union, freeing hundreds of millions), it was not without its tests.

Who could forget Thatcher’s decisiveness in immediately dispatching the British fleet to reclaim the Falklands after they were invaded? That act of war by the Argentinians, by the way, was calculated on the belief that Britain had neither the resources nor the stomach to wage a conflict half a world away.

Were they ever wrong.

A throwback to another era — and likely the last time we’ll ever see it— Ships of the British Line steaming 8,000 miles in the mold of Nelson and Hornblower, freeing the people and routing the Argentinians. Perhaps most significant, Thatcher’s bold action put an exclamation point on the undeniable fact that British Pride was back.

Years later, Thatcher took considerable heat — but never faltered — when she allowed American bombers based in Britain to attack Libya after Gaddafi’s acts of terror. And of course, her chiding of George H.W. Bush as he wavered about helping Kuwait after Iraq’s invasion will forever define her testicular fortitude: “Remember George, this is no time to go wobbly!”  Classic Margaret Thatcher.

Back home, she embarked on the Herculean task of reviving the sluggish, bureaucrat-laden economy, succeeding by instituting labor reforms, free-market principles and privatization initiatives. Just like Reagan, she endured some very tough days before things turned around, but she held fast, declaring to doubters in her own Party, “You turn if you want to…this Lady’s not for turning.”

Turn she did not. And she was reelected twice.

*****

As effective as Thatcher was, she had her drawbacks, none more significant than her handling of Northern Ireland. Declaring “crime is crime is crime; it is not political,” she let Bobby Sands and nine other Irish prisoners die from their hunger strike as they protested their deplorable conditions and political status.

Debating the England-Ireland issue is for another column. It is clear, however,  that while Thatcher made some progress for peace in Northern Ireland, it wasn’t nearly enough.  True, the conflict didn’t originate on her watch, but as a strong-willed leader, she could have and should have done more to rectify that situation.  Too many —on both sides — died, too many families were needlessly ripped apart, and too many lives were ruined in Ireland during Maggie’s reign.

With few exceptions, the British Empire left the places they occupied considerably better off than when they found it.  Not so with Northern Ireland, and the troubles occurring there in the 1980’s remain a black mark on what is otherwise a legacy for the record books.

*****

Reflecting on the 1980’s, it is clear that both Americans and Brits were far more unified in their respective countries. Sure, there were political rivalries and disagreements, but not nearly as mean-spirited and downright uncivil as today. Thatcher and Reagan could have a knock-down, drag-out fight with an opponent during the day and share a beer — and a laugh —that evening.

Maybe that was because we weren’t the only superpower back then. We knew the sobering capabilities of our enemy — and the consequences of failure in meeting its challenges. Maybe it was because, despite our political differences, that Cold War kept us sharply focused, binding us together as a people facing the ultimate threat.

But even more, it was because we had great leaders, true visionaries who believed in a hell of a lot more than themselves and their next election. Great communicators, Reagan and Thatcher were principled, God-fearing stalwarts who made us once again believe in something that had been lost before they came along: ourselves.

Gipper, your best friend is with you again. Iron Lady, thank you. Rest in Peace.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates FreindlyFireZone.com.

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Conundrum

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Conundrum

In 2010, Gov. Tom Corbett was elected by a wide margin, in part because of his insistence that the state-controlled liquor system be privatized — an issue on which he was absolutely correct.

Despite that being a cornerstone of his campaign, nothing was accomplished during his first two years, even though he enjoyed historic Republican majorities in both legislative chambers.

Since privatizing liquor is one of the few issues that enjoys a large consensus, it’s baffling why it took so long for the Republicans to put forth a plan. Now they have finally done so, yet it’s so ill-conceived that state-store union employees are punch-drunk with elation.

For now, though, it’s important to realize why privatization is so long overdue.

Sometimes the grass really is greener elsewhere. For Pennsylvanians, that “green” is all the money saved by consumers in other states because they aren’t gouged when buying alcohol.

For the uninitiated, here is a primer for how Pennsylvania’s alcohol monopoly works:

Pennsylvania is the largest purchaser of booze in the country. The state government, through the Liquor Control Board (LC, controls the purchase, distribution and sale of all wine and liquor. You might think that with such immense clout, we would have outstanding selection and competitive pricing. But as we all know, that’s clearly not the case.

Interestingly, the LCB is charged with two distinct, and inherently contradictory, roles. While it is responsible for raising revenue through the sale of wine and liquor, it is also charged with controlling the sale of booze throughout Pennsylvania. By definition, if the LCB is succeeding at one, it must be failing at the other.

The major reason why alcohol is so expensive is courtesy of an 18 percent “temporary” tax. So a $10 bottle jumps to $11.80 — and that’s before the 6 percent sales tax is calculated, making Pennsylvania inherently uncompetitive. But since it’s a government monopoly, the bureaucrats don’t care. Oh, and why the 18 percent levy? To rebuild Johnstown after its second flood.

Which occurred in 1936. So much for “temporary.”

Anyone traveling outside Pennsylvania knows how refreshing it is to enter a grocery store and, remembering you need a bottle of wine, browse the plethora of vino at your fingertips. Since others accomplish this feat with little difficulty, it’s incomprehensible that the nation’s sixth-largest state can’t — or, more accurately, won’t — do the same.

It is infinitely more efficient when a private company, responsive to the needs of the free market (instead of bureaucrats), stocks its shelves with items that consumers actually want, at a fair market price. It is the core principle on which America was founded.

But Pennsylvania remains stuck in the Dark Ages, choosing to remain there. It hasn’t dawned on the politicos that they are losing untold revenue because of their Draconian system, as millions cross state lines to fill their liquor cabinets.

And despite protections from the Interstate Commerce Clause, if you are caught bringing alcohol into Pennsylvania, it’s a criminal offense. In fact, such “criminals” used to have their cars confiscated for doing so.

To be fair, today’s LCB has made substantial progress. Not too long ago, customers had to place their orders at the counter, since browsing was not permitted. The clerk would disappear into the bowels of the store, only to return 10 minutes later, more often than not stating that they were “out of stock” and asking for another choice. Now imagine that scene at Christmas, with 30 people in line.

But that’s not all.

Nothing was chilled. No ancillary items such as tonic water were sold. No employees were permitted to offer advice. And credit cards were not accepted.

And all this because former Gov. Gifford Pinchot, who as a young man became violently sick while imbibing overseas, became determined to make alcohol as difficult as possible to obtain.

But the LCB’s improvements amount to being valedictorian of summer school. The whole system has to be scrapped. The ultimate irony is that the Keystone State, birthplace of American democracy and cradle of liberty, continues down the path of state control and government regulation, to the detriment of its 12 million citizens.

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Conundrum

Current Liquor Privatization Plan Unworthy

Current Liquor Privatization Plan Unworthy

“I don’t know…he’s either very smart or very dumb.”

– Quint, in ‘Jaws,’ trying to figure out the shark.

Quint’s
famous line perfectly sums up both Gov. Tom Corbett and the
Republican-controlled House as they push their liquor privatization
bill. They’re either very smart, trying to pull a fast one on
Pennsylvanians who expect better selection and lower prices (which they
know cannot happen with this bill). Or they’re very dumb, actually
believing the bill they’re peddling will actually accomplish those
things.

Here’s betting on the latter.

♦

No offense to Chris Christie, but anytime Jersey can do something better, you know you have problems.

And
clearly, buying wine and liquor is better there. Of course, that’s not
saying much, as 48 states have markedly better ways to buy liquor and
beer than Pennsylvania. Only Mormon-heavy Utah is also state-controlled.
Gee, what great company.

So huge numbers of Pennsylvanians
continue to stock up in other states, especially tax-free Delaware, to
the detriment of state coffers.

The fact that Corbett and the
House Republicans think that situation will change with the current bill
(which passed the House on Party lines) makes you wonder if they were
drunk while crafting such bad legislation.

Let’s review:

Despite being overwhelmingly
elected in 2010, in large part by promising to privatize liquor, Tom
Corbett did nothing in his first two years. Actually, that’s not true.
His big foray into that issue was commissioning yet another blue-ribbon
panel to – ready for this? – study liquor privatization.

Just thinking about that gives you a hangover.

And
now that they are officially on board with privatization – which is the
right thing to do – they vomit a bill that will neither increase
selection, nor, most significantly, reduce prices.

Only in Pennsylvania.

This
bill is a non-starter, and should it pass the Senate in its current
form – far from certain, since Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of
Chester,  is lukewarm and the GOP lost 10 percent of its seats in the
last election – the people will be vastly disappointed upon realizing
that prices will be the same, or even higher.

Here’s why:

The
whopping 18 percent Johnstown Flood tax (established to rebuild that
city after its 1936 flood) remains in place, on top of which is the
state sales tax. End of story for lower prices.

Being hamstrung
by such an onerous tax gives the wholesalers and retailers absolutely no
wiggle room, forcing them to keep prices substantially higher than
stores in neighboring states.

There are only a few players in the
nation with the capital to buy in at the wholesale level, which will
cost tens of millions just to get a seat at the table. And that’s just
the beginning.

Funny thing about liquor – it’s bulky and very
heavy. Transporting it across 45,000 square miles will take one hell of
a lot of trucks and drivers, neither of which come cheaply. There
will be the need for huge warehousing space in multiple locations.
Personnel requirements will be substantial, and the costs associated
with distribution networks and other ancillary logistical issues will be
considerable. And last we checked, fuel costs were near record highs.

These companies are not in business
to break even or lose money. Translation: you won’t be buying liquor
any cheaper than you can today.

Making this bill even less than
gin-dandy are the pie-in-the-sky revenue projections related to
licensing. Beer distributors would be able to sell wine and liquor, but
for a substantially priced initial license fee (and subsequent
renewals). Great, except for three big problems:

1) Most beer
distributors are small, undercapitalized mom-and-pop operations. They
have a hard enough time making ends meet, so where exactly are they
coming up with the cash required for a license? With so many licenses
up for grabs, most banks will balk at loaning the necessary funds to
acquire a license, as it is will be seen as far too risky.

2)
Assuming a distributor could get a license, the capital outlay would
jump again, as they would have to add considerably more square footage
to their existing stores, or lease/buy a much larger space altogether.
Wine and liquor take up a lot of space, and recession notwithstanding,
that space isn’t cheap.

3) Distributors know nothing about wine,
so, in order to compete, they would have to hire additional staff with
knowledge of vino.

One of two things will occur. Many
distributors can’t or won’t apply for licenses, and for those who do,
their prices will increase to make up for their additional costs. When
you add in the mandated Flood Tax, it becomes obvious that overall costs
have to rise, perhaps dramatically. Distributors would also have to
compensate for the loss of revenue associated with the widespread
availability of six-packs and the elimination of the
buy-beer-by-the-case law.

♦

Granted, many politicians are
slow, but this one should be a no-brainer. Eliminate the 18 percent tax,
and you eliminate the need to cross the border and give other states
Pennsylvanian’s money.

Some will ask where the revenue shortfall
would be made up should the tax be rescinded. That’s easy. First, you
don’t keep a tax that is wrong just because you happen to rely on the
revenue it provides. You fix it. Second, that’s the Legislature’s job
every budget: decide how much money goes where. If there’s a shortfall,
other slices of the pie get smaller. Tighten the belt like families do.

Most
important, there wouldn’t be a shortfall. If the incentive is taken
away to go to other states, untold millions – which would be “new
revenue” – would find their way into Pennsylvania because of the massive
volume in liquor sales that would occur. Remember, as it stands now,
the state is getting zero from the millions currently flowing to other
states.

Corbett and the Republicans need to
put down the bottle and either rectify their error of pushing a bill
they think is good, or stop the political expediency of rushing a bill
they know is bad but can deceivingly trumpet as a success purely for
re-election purposes.

Do liquor privatization right, or not at all. And you don’t have to be blitzed to know that.

 

Current Liquor Privatization Plan Unworthy

Obama Torpedoes Economy

Obama Torpedoes Economy

Forbes, FOX, Bloomberg, Congress – anyone? Do you see the pattern? America’s economy is not self-destructing, it is being dismantled. Amid bad unemployment numbers, high food and fuel prices, a devalued dollar, the already devastating impact of Obamacare on businesses and hiring, President Barack Obama is again pressuring banks to make bad housing loans to people with weak credit. Obama’s new push for substandard loans portends a repeat of the housing loan disaster that led to the 2008 crash that tanked the economy when the Democrats held full control of both the House and the Senate.

Obama’s policy of coercing banks to make questionable loans under-minds a still fragile U.S. economy and sabotages potential recovery. Zachary A. Goldfarb reports in the Washington Post that “…critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.” Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute and former Fannie Mae executive is quoted as saying: “If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from.”

To understand who and what originally sent the economy into a tailspin, details are laid-out in the article that I wrote on the topic, Bloomberg: DEMS Behind Housing Scam:

In regard to the devastating housing fraud that helped collapse the U.S. economy, a Reuter’s headline read: “U.S. Sues Bank of America for Alleged Mortgage Fraud.” According to Reuters, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department “filed a civil mortgage fraud lawsuit against Bank of America, accusing it of selling thousands of toxic home loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that went into default and caused more than $1 billion of losses.”

In reality, it is a prime example of President Obama and the Progressive Democrats’ adeptness at avoiding responsibility and deflecting blame. Democrats continue to elude culpability in initiating the housing collapse that thrust the economy into a nose dive. Liberals count on voters lacking enough information to connect-the-dots as they point accusingly at their partners-in-crime. Americans have been told by Obama’s sycophantic media that it was the fault of greedy bankers, mortgage brokers and Wall Street derivatives – some of which came into play once the set-up, the opportunity for greed baited the bad players into joint accountability.

The question the American people should ask is: Who were the masters of the economic collapse, the architects whose scheme worked so well that they virtually escaped the blame?  Though they now deny it, Democrats led by Barney Frank (D-MA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Greg Meeks, (D-NY) are on video, in effect, in support of glutting the housing market with unsustainable mortgages in the form of bad loans. Historically, it will go down as one of the liberal Democrats’ all-time big lies to the American people. In Capital, Azi Parbarah reported in 2011 that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pointed the finger squarely at the Democrat-controlled Congress as instigating America’s financial collapse:

“If there is anyone to blame for the mortgage crisis that led to the collapse of the financial industry, it’s not the “big banks,” but Congress. [They] were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.” Bloomberg added, “It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”

What Bloomberg failed to mention is that Obama, himself, adamantly demanded that banks make more loans to low-income borrowers. Sub-prime loans became the great American rip-off. Obama and the Democrats strong-armed lenders to give loans to people who could not repay them. Grateful new homeowners were to then obligingly ply the Democrats with their votes.

The ugly and inevitable consequences forced the poor, mostly Hispanics and Blacks, out of their unaffordable homes through wide-scale foreclosures. Home prices fell, construction workers lost jobs, the housing industry began a free-fall and America’s AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time since 1917. The result: The worst economy in recent memory. Today, America bears the brunt of the Democrats’ manipulation of the housing market resulting in lost homes, lost jobs, and a destabilized economy.

Obama is again pressurizing banks into questionable loans. The result will be déjà vu with a far worse ending. The administration may point to improved housing and stock markets, but both remain tenuous for the average American. The job market remains tentative and any veteran of the stock market knows that Wall Street is no longer in the hands of the Bulls and Bears, but the wolves.

Again, Forbes, FOX, Bloomberg, Congress – anyone? The captain of the Titanic did not have this much warning.

Sharon Sebastian is a columnist, commentator, author, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites.

Mighty Macs Deserve Applause

Mighty Macs Deserve Applause

Embattled Rutgers Basketball coach Mike Rice is embattled no more. He’s been fired for hitting, shoving and rebuking his players with homosexual slurs. Now certain members of the Rutgers faculty are delivering an ultimatum to university President Robert Barchi, insisting that he resign over his first response to Rice’s behavior.

Barchi leveled a stiff fine ($75,000) on Rice, suspended him, and made him attend anger-management counseling. Losing about 12 percent of his salary and attending behavior-modification classes may seem like a realistic punitive reaction to Rice’s conduct—and it apparently was five months ago when all this took place last fall—but then something was added to the equation.

The media got hold of a video tape showing Rice carrying on at a 2012 practice, and…well, you know what happens next. Call it media overkill, call it airing dirty laundry in public, call it letting the cat out of the bag, call it whistleblowing, call it, “Uh-oh; I thought I took care of all this!”

Whatever tag you put on this issue, one factor becomes increasingly clear: Many, if not most private decisions at this level eventually become public. You would think President Barchi had to realize that, especially since another nearby university president (Penn State’s Graham Spanier) found himself attired in similar dirty laundry just a few short (by news media standards) years ago.

During my last three years as a Philadelphia Police supervisor, one of my prime responsibilities was to train all of our command staff—more than 200 senior officers—in media relations. Every month we would put about a dozen commanders through an intensive two-day course concerning the “Do’s  & Don’t’s”  of dealing with print and electronic media.

And one of the platitudes that I would (try to) hammer home was, “Assume the media is eventually going to find out; so disclose sooner rather than later. Get it out, and get it over-with!” Or, as the IHM nuns taught us back in St. Dominic School, “Whatever you do in private, if you act as though you’re doing it in the presence of Jesus, you can’t go wrong.”

Or something like that.

It’s sort of like ripping a bandage from a wound—Do it quickly and get the discomfort out of the way.

Too many high-powered individuals in high-profile positions never seem to take that dictum seriously. They instead seem to adopt the, “It won’t happen to me” attitude: Richard Nixon…Graham Spanier…Hillary Clinton…Robert Barchi…

Who will be next? And you can be sure; there will be a next time.

Contemporary media is everywhere. With cell phones, iPads, and PCs, every boorish busybody is an instant worldwide reporter. Not as omnipresent as Jesus, of course, but close enough to give us pause when considering how we will be held accountable for our actions.

(Excerpted from Good Writers Block)

 

Mighty Macs Deserve Applause

Murder By Any Name

By Sharon Sebastian


Abortion, partial-birth, infanticide, they all meet the profile. America is progressively moving into a new era of the slaughter of the innocents. A baby is born. It takes its first breath of life, its heart beats, it hears voices. Feeling every nerve in its newborn body, it experiences the marvel of a profound consciousness outside of the womb. Instead of being swathed in warm blankets and celebrated as new life – it is placed in a waste bin or on a shelf and left to die. It is to suffer death through dehydration and starvation. To expedite death, a more efficient means to end its life is now being proposed: out-right murder. The newborn’s crime, it survived an abortion.

If you can sit back in your easy chair and get comfortable with this, then something is extremely wrong with you. If you can accept abortion-infanticide, look at your hands, there is blood on them. If you can casually look the other way, then you are part of the “good is evil and evil is good” crowd. Too brutal; think again. Too brutal is the practice of an abortionist taking the life of a partially-birthed baby by crushing its skull during a late-term pregnancy. That is – too brutal.

Last week in Florida, legislators were told that babies who are born as viable, living human beings – that survive after a failed abortion attempt – could or should be killed if that is the rendered verdict of the abortion doctor and the [anesthetized] mother. Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist for Florida’s Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, reportedly stated the group’s position is that the abortion “doctor and mother should have the right to decide” to take the life of a breathing baby. No matter its condition, healthy or otherwise, newborn babies who manage to survive an abortion can, under the proposal, face the death penalty. The proposed death sentence is not so much about physical viability, but the burden of the baby itself. With the mother’s health or survival not in question and in no way threatened, without judge or jury, abortion advocates suggest that small, unprotected human beings may be destroyed.

More than fifty million babies have been discarded since abortion was legalized in 1973. Abortion led to partial-birth abortion and now leads to the suggested murder of newborns. Did no one foresee that the threshold of the killing of innocents in the womb would eventually be breached? Did no one see it coming? Does no one understand what is next to come?

To think that abortion has nothing to do with you and your family is pure naiveté. To understand why this has happened and what is to come, read the book “Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.” In as simple terms as possible, I lay out the Liberal mentality that devalues the life of not only the unborn, but of every citizen. The book details what everyone, irrespective of age, sex, race, or social status, can expect in regard to their right to life. Written as an alert for the uninformed, the book is a warning of what happens when faith and values are withdrawn and replaced by a callous secularism that serves itself at the expense of individual rights and freedoms. By secreting real intent, Secular-Progressives have turned “good is evil and evil is good” into a political movement.

Life and death decisions for your family are already being shifted out of your control.  It is becoming clearer by the day that innocent, unnamed babies will not be the only casualties. As Socialist-elites in Washington retain power and seek more, expect increasing control by them of life and death issues that impact you and your family. From public funded abortions, to comfort care — not cures — for our elderly, life is being methodically devalued. Quality medical care is now deprioritized by law as Socialist-elites thirst for ever more power over your lives. The same people who sustain the abortion movement are behind Obamacare and its well-funded 15-member death panel headed up by Obama’s hand-picked over-seer who openly professes his zeal for socialized medicine.

In March 2001, before the Illinois legislature, then State Senator Barack Obama spoke against protecting the rights of both the unborn and the newborn whether murdered inside or outside the womb. Members of the Illinois 92nd General Assembly stated that its key concern was:

That the way children [who survive an abortion] are treated following their birth — after these circumstances — has been reported to be…less than humane…and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a – a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States. (Emphasis added)

Obama disagreed. The only state senator to oppose the protection of newborns that survive an abortion, he called the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act “unconstitutional.”  Today, Obama openly lobbies for the abortion industry as Obamacare funds abortions with tax-payer dollars.

Key to President Obama’s agenda is his policy of increased abortions and sterilizations. Obama, however, is not the only political elite with a clear Darwinian eugenics’ mind-set. Potential 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proudly accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award in 2009. The award is Planned Parenthood’s highest honor in recognition of its acknowledged founder. Upon accepting the award, Mrs. Clinton stated openly that she is “in awe of Margaret Sanger” – a secular-Progressive who called for the murder of toddlers up to the age of two should they be a burden on their family. (A chapter is written about Clinton’s idolized-abortionist, Sanger – a Darwin worshipper – in the book, Darwin’s Racists.)

Reportedly, Planned Parenthood now wants to expand the term abortion to provide cover for the actual killing of an unwanted infant after its live birth. It is an attempt to persuade others to call abortion by anything but its real name – murder. Using the term “aborted” and not “murdered” allows its perpetrators to deflect from the evil that it really is – the taking of a human life.

The assault on the unborn through abortion led to the barbaric act of partial birth or late-term abortions, which has now led to the proposed butchering of babies in what is being called abortion-infanticides. Testimony in an ongoing trial in Pennsylvania cites that the spines of living babies are cut to kill them if they survive an abortion. At the same time, the Florida legislature hears testimony that a law needs to be passed to allow and sanction the murder of babies that are born-alive at abortion clinics. Darwinism and eugenics thrive among Liberal-Socialists in Washington. Today, the Darwinian-Socialists have a tax-payer funded 15-member panel of unelected judges set to decide life and death medical care for people of all ages. Today, by using tax dollars to fund abortion, Obama puts every tax-payer inside the abortion room as de facto participants in the taking of innocent lives. Can Americans live with that?

Sharon Sebastian  is a columnist, commentator, author, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites.

 

Murder By Any Name

Chief Justice Roberts Meet ObamaCare

Chief Justice Roberts Meet ObamaCare

“Our doctors have told us to be prepared for the worst because right now we can hardly find a doctor.”

Liberals on the Supreme Court and in Congress refused to heed this
warning as they brazenly imposed President Barack Obama’s Affordable
Care Act on the American people. Under a cloud of controversy, Obamacare
has now entered its third year.

In its 2012 decision on Obamacare, the U.S. Supreme Court based its ruling on a convoluted interpretation of law. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts voted alongside liberal justices to clear the way for the implementation of Obamacare. Roberts’ overriding concern was if the individual mandate to force Americans to buy medical insurance should be labeled a tax or a fine. Human loss and suffering were inconsequential. The human toll could not be factored in based on legal constricts placed on the court.
Decisions are to be based on law and not emotion. Regardless and
predictably, the leftist jurists’ ideology of applying social justice, a
primary tenet of socialism, infused their decisions. Conservatives on
the bench voted against the individual mandate, which would force
Americans to purchase medical insurance under coercion whether by a tax
or fine, as unconstitutional.

Soon after its passage, Obamacare began claiming casualties.
Front-line victims became early warnings of the pain and suffering — the
desperation — to come. Few in seats of power took heed. Obama and
Congress had, after all, exempted themselves from the medical nightmare
they created along with a swath of their political cronies and
supporters. Supreme Court justices remain exempt as well. Question: Why
exempt themselves? What is it that they are afraid of?

Mid-2010, Americans were beginning to experience the creeping effects
of socialized medicine. During a radio interview, a caller who
identified himself as a life-long Democrat told me of the particular
form of hell that he and his young paraplegic wife were going through
due to Obamacare. The caller wanted to warn fellow Americans. His wife
was already being abandoned by her doctors who feared cuts in
reimbursements. Doctors pointed to mandated cuts in Medicare monies
being shifted to fund Obamacare. What follows is a limited transcript of
my on-air interview with the caller about his wife’s ordeal.

Husband/Caller: “Our doctors have told us
to be prepared for the worst because right now we can hardly find a
doctor. We’re not in a small town, and when we go to find a new doctor
for a new problem, a podiatrist or specialty doctor of any kind, we go
through many, many, many, many names before one finally decides to take
us. They tell us upfront that you are going to probably end-up being
billed the 20% because we [the doctors] know that we don’t get
reimbursed for that and they’ve changed their paperwork. You used to be
able to pick up the phone and call any doctor and they say come on in,
we take Medicare, we take QMB – now I spend two and three days trying to
find one doctor with other doctors helping me to find a doctor that
would accept the program. Through the Bush time, we thought GW was the
worst thing that had ever happened to America. But, we were able to keep
everything we had. Nothing was affected, our health plan was not
affected, the doctors were not affected, nothing happened to us badly.
Well, now since Obama has taken over we can no longer . . .” (Voice
cracks.)

The caller explained further, that in desperation, he took his wife
to a clinic. Clinic doctors informed him that they were not qualified to
treat his wife, nor could they admit patients to a hospital. Frantic,
he recruited the help of others in his continued search to find a
qualified doctor who would accept their Medicare/Qualified Medicare
Beneficiary program. Eventually, he said, a 74-year-old doctor, in
semi-retirement, finally agreed to treat his wife.

As a result of that call, I have investigated first-hand accounts and
concerns of those who provide medical care to our mentally and
physically disabled and to our seniors. Medical care providers expect
the human toll, from warehousing patients to loss of life, to be
extensive. Obamacare results in fewer doctors available to middle and
lower income patients. Corruption is embedded in Obama’s Affordable Care
Act as it fosters breeding grounds for less skilled and less ethical
doctors and clinics to run Obamacare mills based on quantity of patients
and not quality of care.

A recent interview I did with an emergency room doctor disclosed
traumatizing choices that doctors are already being forced to make. An
experienced emergency room doctor found himself trapped
between admitting two critically ill patients or adhering to newly
applied government regulations. His hospital’s funding was under new
government-imposed financial guidelines. Costs were to be lowered by
turning away short-term, repeat Medicare patients. The doctor explains
that he is now caught in a regulatory vice:

“As more and more are added to the
Obamacare rolls, there will be less and less access. People will get
sicker and yes, people will die because of it. I had a sick and sinking
feeling in the pit of my stomach today after both of these incidents.”

Facing the prospects of turning away dying patients or facing a
hospital reprimand for admitting them, this doctor chose patient care
over job security. The doctor expects to retire in a few years.

Former top aide to Obama, Jeffrey Crowley, helped design how
Obamacare is being implemented. Crowley openly admits that there are
serious flaws, saying, “We know it’s going to be messy.” “Messy?”  Is
that what President Obama, liberal Democrats and socialists on the
Supreme Court call the heartache, suffering and sorrow that is already
being faced by Americans and their families? Chief Justice Roberts and
his liberal jurists on the high court have torpedoed the American
economy along with the American health care system making the pain not
just medical, but financial. Workers nationwide complain that their
paychecks have been hit with the first-round of Obamacare taxes
resulting in less take-home pay. It is just the beginning.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey reveals that a 54 percent
majority of Americans expect the U.S. healthcare system to get worse
over the next four years. Benjamin Domenech of Health Care News reports
that the latest Kaiser/Harvard survey found, “Obamacare’s Unpopularity
Grows in New Poll.” The survey reports that the disapproval of Obamacare
“was mostly driven by an increase in opposition from the politically
significant independent voters — the survey found 57% of independents
opposed the law, up from 41 percent last month.” The
House of Representatives currently has the authority to defund the
administrative arm of the Affordable Care Act and effectively nullify
Obamacare. Having been given that authority by the American people, the
latest polls indicate that they should use it — and then expand sales of
personal medical insurance into the free-market to be sold at
competitive rates across state lines.

Sharon Sebastian’s work can be found at  AmericanDailyHerald.Com

Chief Justice Roberts Meet ObamaCare

Will New Pope Face “Age Old” Problem?

Who says the Catholic Church can’t change? By electing Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina, the conclave of Cardinals just made history.  The list of “firsts” is impressive:

-First Pope from the Americas;
-First non-European in 1,200 years;
-First Latin American pontiff;
-First to take the name Francis.

Most amazing, he’s the first non-Catholic pope.

He’s a Jesuit.

*****

Jokes aside, the selection of Bergoglio is an interesting choice. His accomplishments are significant, from modernizing the Argentinian Church to having the guts to clash with President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner on important issues.  Infinitely more attractive to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, though, is how he conducts his daily life.

He is a genuinely humble man who serves God with the utmost seriousness — truly a testament to the Saint whose name he chose, Francis of Assisi, who renounced a life of privilege to serve the Lord.

Criticism of the Church is at an all-time high, and millions have left because of what they view is an inconsistent, and often hypocritical, message, especially regarding the sex scandals and cover-ups. So the selection of a leader who embodies a “practice what you preach” ethic could not have come at a better moment.

And anyone who believes that ethic is for show, think again. In his wildest dreams (prior to the resignation of Benedict), Bergoglio could never have imagined himself becoming pontiff. Popes rarely step down (only four in 2,000 years), and had Benedict served just another few years, Bergoglio would have been 80 — out of contention for the next papacy.

Which makes his humility all the more real, as his lifestyle clearly wasn’t a ploy to ingratiate himself with the College of Cardinals.  It was, and is, what he believes is right.

Until his election as pontiff, he cooked his own meals. He lived in a one-room apartment. More often than not, he walked or took public transportation. (Though, on this last point, we can give many American Cardinals a pass.  Could you imagine Your Eminence in Philadelphia taking the El or Broad Street Subway, or walking to his next meeting on Girard Avenue? It’s great to have God on your side, but honestly, a Glock .45 “on his side” would serve him better.)

Upon becoming Pope, Bergoglio clearly showed the world, at risk of alienating ultra-traditionalists, that the courage of his convictions still reigned supreme.

He didn’t don the typical red papal mozzetta vestments, but a plain white robe. He wasn’t laden with gold and jewels, but adorned a simple wooden Cross. He asked the throngs in St. Peter’s Square to pray for him. Rather than preaching in liturgical platitudes, he actually spoke to the flock. He eschewed the special chair on a raised platform, choosing to greet each Cardinal on the same level, showing he was still one of them.  Forsaking the Pope Car, he rode to the hotel on the bus with all the Cardinals, later invoking laughter as he toasted them: “May God forgive you!”

And upon checkout, he paid the hotel bill himself and carried his own luggage.

Not a bad start.

*****

While praying one day, St. Francis heard Christ speak to him: “Francis, repair my Church.”

In that regard, Pope Francis has his work cut out for him.  As one of “God’s Marines,” as the Jesuits are known, he will have to fight every day to repair a fractured Church. Modernize without compromise, apologize and sanitize, and organize and proselytize.

A herculean task, and one compounded by his age. He is 76. Put another way, he is 24 years short of the century mark.

Is such a consideration discriminatory? Age-ist?  Unfair?

Absolutely.  But also true. Like it or not, age, and appearance, matter.

Maybe 76 is the new 56. Maybe Pope Francis will be photographed fist-bumping a 10-year old. Maybe his charisma knows no bounds, allowing him to resonate with all generations, reinvigorating the faithful and inspiring the departed to return.

But it will take an extraordinary amount of energy and strength, attributes which clearly had left Pope Benedict. Will Pope Francis have the necessary stamina, and if so, for how long? Time will tell.

And let’s be clear about something. For this pope to be effective, he must be a globetrotter, racking up huge miles. And yes, that means regularly visiting that not-so-obscure country accounting for not just millions of Catholics and billions for Church coffers, but one that also happens to be the leader of the world. It’s called the United States, and papal visits every decade don’t, and won’t, cut it.  Benedict’s first — and last — visit was in 2008, three years after becoming Pope. Because of his frailty, more numerous trips didn’t occur, and that perfectly illustrates why age matters.

Both flock and clergy need to see their leader on a more frequent basis, but such a schedule takes a toll. And let’s not forget that the Pope is not just the leader of a religion, but a Head-of-State, as the Vatican is its own sovereign country.

Those who criticize the questioning of age are not dealing with reality. Age was a major issue with numerous presidential candidates, not just from a health standpoint, but also relatability. John McCain and Bob Dole both lost to younger, more charismatic opponents. And an old-looking, frail FDR could never have been elected in the age of television because he was wheelchair-bound, weakened by polio.

However, if anyone proved that age could be overcome, it was Ronald Reagan. Despite being on death’s door after the assassination attempt, the nation’s oldest-elected president nonetheless traveled the world, rebuilt a battered economy, and defeated communism, in the process freeing more people than any other person in history.

But Francis begins his papacy only one year younger than when Reagan left office. Age will become a factor, and we may be choosing another pope within a decade. Is this the new precedent? Is it a calculated move to ensure that massive media coverage of the Church continues? Is choosing a new leader every few years necessary to adapt with the times, hoping a fresh perspective will keep Catholics interested? Or will such a practice lead to a “been there, done that” tedium? Too soon to tell.

One thing is certain. Pope Francis can either be a great communicator by preaching worldwide, or he can stay in the Vatican and clean house, cutting its massive bureaucracy and reforming the Church from within. But he can’t do both.

Here’s hoping he appoints some kick-ass, take-no-prisoners lieutenants to do the latter, and resurrects the global force for good the Church was, prior to the scandals. And since he is 76, there’s no better time than the present.

*****

I am lucky enough to have stayed in Assisi, Italy. In between imbibing Umbrian wine with the locals, I traced the footsteps of Francis: where he performed his deeds, where he lived and often went hungry in the caves above town, and where he lies buried under the Basilica. It was impossible not to become immersed in his almost-too-amazing-to-be-true life.

Given that Jorge Bergoglio chose to emulate such a model human, the Cardinals may have, in fact, chosen wisely.

And since the rain that had been pouring on St. Peter’s Square just happened to stop the moment before Pope Francis was announced to the world, it seems The Big Guy agrees.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates FreindlyFireZone.com . He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

If the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) could compete for an Emmy, it would definitely be a winner.  Its “Security Theatre” has become a cutting-edge soap opera, replete with comedy, drama and ultimately, tragedy.
And the latest episode is making the biggest headlines yet.
The TSA has sliced and diced a prior position, and is now permitting passengers to carry knives onto planes.
Yes. Knives. Those sharp, pointy things that can puncture a pilot’s jugular in a heartbeat, make flight attendants talk like Stephen Hawking, and create total pandemonium at 35,000 feet.
If so many people’s lives, not to mention the entire economy, were not jeopardized by this warped decision, it would be funny.  But this is definitely no joke.
However, you can take solace.  The TSA has shown great sensitivity to the 9/11 attacks by keeping box-cutters banned, despite the steely fact that their blades are but a fraction of those on the permissible knives. Another oxymoron we call “TSA Consistency.”
Even more comical is the TSA’s criteria for the knives. If the blade is no more than 2.36” long and a half-inch wide, it will fly the (un)friendly skies. The blade must also be one that folds away, which is, presumably, because the TSA thinks a 2.36” folded blade (which is locked when opened) can’t kill someone. More reassuring, the knife cannot have a molded handle, which should be a huge relief to everyone — except those who actually fly.
Why the monumental shift in TSA policy? In addition to wanting to be more in-line with Europe (honest to God, that’s no joke), it says security lines are congested because TSA screeners are confiscating thousands of such knives, and these items don’t pose a 9/11-type threat anyway.
Oh. So because druggies and shoplifters create logjams in our courts, we should just give in and make their actions legal?
And how exactly will lines be shortened with TSA screeners now using tape measures to ensure that 2.37” knives don’t slip by? Although, truth be told, they could all just emulate the Philadelphia Airport, where everything seems to get through.
The TSA is convinced that a 9/11 hijacking can never occur again because so much has changed: steel cockpit doors, a vigilant flying public, air marshals and better intelligence.  And there you have it: TSA’s  “risk-based” security plan. Which is really great, except the parts about the steel cockpit doors, a vigilant flying public, air marshals and better intelligence.
Let’s review:
1. Yes, cockpit doors are strengthened, but since there aren’t self-contained bathrooms in the cockpit, pilots are absolutely vulnerable every time nature calls.
2. Is the TSA expecting passengers to work “fight-the-knife-freak” duty? And how many people are the TSA willing to sacrifice? It’s not just the doped up or drunk passenger who stabs the flight attendant because he hated the in-flight movie. It’s a handful of Mohammed Attas coordinating a vicious attack, each wielding several legal weapons. Sound familiar? It should, since box-cutters were legal on 9/11.  Once the attack commences, then what? Maybe they gain entrance to the cockpit, and maybe not. But when you’re dealing with fanatics who can’t wait to meet Allah and all those supposed virgins, it’s going to be a bloodbath. And since sophisticated terrorists always utilize surprise, they will gain the upper hand immediately.
Can’t wait for the TSA press conference after an aircraft lands with 300 dead passengers and crew. “Yeah, they all got stabbed to death. But hey! We didn’t lose the plane!”
And guess what? The economy would collapse anyway.
3. Air marshals? Sorry, they’ve been sequestrationed, and only fly on a small percentage of flights anyway. For the record, they vehemently oppose the TSA knife policy. Next.
4. Better intelligence. Really? Where? Like in New York in 2010, when the Muslim fundamentalist Times Square bomber was caught by Lady Luck? You may remember him. After fleeing Manhattan, he went to the airport, bought a one-way ticket to the Middle East — in cash —, boarded the plane, and almost almost took off. And best of all, he was on the No-Fly List!
Or the 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber who, only through sheer ineptness, didn’t bring down a jumbo jet over the U.S. He was also on our watch lists, and his own father repeatedly warned our intelligence communities of his son’s intentions, yet he too almost succeeded.
Out of curiosity, does that “better intelligence” include the countless alphabet-soup agencies that still wage turf wars with each other and don’t share information? Just wondering.
*****
Of course, there is a much better solution. It’s called profiling, and it works really, really well.  Just ask the Israelis, who know a thing or two about terrorists. (El Al has only been hijacked once).
But out of deference to possible hurt feelings, we refuse. In fact, because of our affinity for political correctness, we do the opposite. The TSA actually announces who doesn’t have to take off their shoes (all children under 12), and who won’t be subject to pat-downs (children, the wheelchair-bound, and pretty much anyone who complains). Which is all well and good except that the Brotherhood of Mohammed Atta has no problem sacrificing their kids, so guess on whom they will hide their explosives?
*****
In 2007, the then-TSA chief lifted the ban on lighters and matches, admitting that policy was “security theatre.” Nothing has changed, as the TSA continues with policies that not only aren’t keeping the skies safe, but actually make them more dangerous.
Unfortunately, Security Theatre has become an all-too-true reality show, playing out every day at thousands of airports. And it’s only a matter of time before it crashes and burns.

But in the meantime, in the hope that Security Theatre can jump to the big screen, the least we could do is suggest some appropriate movie titles. Not sure if the copyrights have expired on these, but here’s taking a stab at it:
Jagged Edge, Blade Runner, Con Air, Fight Club, Skyfall, Airport ’13, and, in honor of when TSA officials fly, Snakes On A Plane.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

Pope Resigning Is Miracle For Church

Thank God for small miracles. Or, in this case, huge ones.
The decision of Pope Benedict XVI to step down — the first resignation in 600 years and only the fourth in history — has given the Catholic Church an unprecedented opportunity to save itself. And since the eleventh hour is upon the Church, the Pope’s action could not have come at a better time.
Whether the conclave of Cardinals takes advantage of this blessing or blows it all to hell remains to be seen.
As one of the Catholic faithful, I desperately want to believe it will choose the right path.
I want to believe the Church, without hesitation, will do whatever is necessary to rebuild the greatest, most benevolent institution the world has ever known.
I want to believe the Church will admit and address, head-on, that its hard times — the scandal, corruption and genuflecting at the wrong altar (that of political correctness) — are sins of its own making.
I want to believe the Church has finally learned to practice what it preaches, that humbleness will replace arrogance, and that it fully appreciates the value of not just forgiveness, but asking to be forgiven.
I want to believe that the new Pope will inherently understand that, in order for the Church to survive, it must adapt — not in ways that undermine the pillars of its divine theology, but by approaching its critical “earthly” issues with an honest, fresh perspective.
I want to believe that the Church will strive to better understand the value of perhaps the most powerful tool in the 21st century: public relations.
And I want to believe that the Catholic Church, once and for all, will cease being a paper tiger, resurrecting its once mighty political power.
But at the risk of sounding like Thomas, I have my doubts.
Given its recent history, the Church does not exactly inspire confidence that it has learned from its mistakes and gained the wisdom (and will) to embark on the path to growth. A gambling man would wager on the next Pope being Business-As-Usual, radiating the status quo and reluctant to make waves.
That would be a good bet, but it would be a losing hand for the Church, relegating it to a house of cards.
*****
So what should the Cardinals do to ensure the survivability of the Church?
1.  For starters, choose the right-looking leader. Honorable as he may be, Pope Benedict makes John McCain look downright boyish, so picking another frail, gray-haired/white-haired/no-haired Pontiff is a surefire way to completely lose the middle-aged-and-younger generations. Like it or not, appearance matters. And that is infallible.
Proof? FDR could have never won in the television age because America would not elect a man in a wheelchair. JFK’s youth and good looks gave him a substantial advantage over Nixon in the debates. Bob Dole versus Bill Clinton? Not even divine intervention could have helped Dole in that matchup. And since the death of European Christianity has largely occurred under older pontiffs, maybe it’s time to go younger.
However, choosing a pope on ethnic appearance would be a huge mistake. Sure, a black pope helps bolster Africa (the new battleground in the vicious Christian-Muslim wars), as a Latino does for Central and South America.  But that vision is short-sighted, as it wouldn’t actually address, let alone solve, the Church’s problems.
2. Select an articulate, charismatic pontiff who, in both perception and reality, can effectively communicate that he is in touch with the true heart and soul of the Church — the rank-and-file. The new pope cannot afford to be aloof or insulated, since these are the very qualities that contributed so mightily to the Church’s decline. How bad has it become? One in ten Americans is an ex-Catholic, and the 30 million who have left the Church, if counted as their own religious group, would be the third-largest denomination in the country. Vocations are a fraction of what they once were, and the obvious stigma associated with entering the seminary keeps even more away. And the stark reality is that, within a decade, Catholic education will be largely gone, leaving churches that much emptier.
3. Ensure the new pope apologizes in an unprecedented upfront, straightforward manner, not just for the scandals but the cover-ups. And that apology should extend down to every parish. Countless Catholics are still waiting for a genuine apology, and many parents feel that they are being put through the ringer because of priests’ sins. Praying in mass for the pedophile clergy, and those who covered up their salacious activities, is one thing. But the many priests who still view the scandals as overblown makes the sin mortal, as the continuing Catholic exodus and dwindling coffers attest.
4. Start talking about the positive aspects of the Church, restoring the credibility that has been shattered by years of sex scandals, shredded documents and cover-ups. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest provider of social services in the entire world (second in America behind only the U.S. government) and administers the world’s largest nonpublic school system, yet most people are unaware of those phenomenal achievements — a massive failure in public relations. It’s time to tell that magnificent story and educate the world — again — on what it really means to be Catholic. Unequivocally, pride in Catholic identity leads to fuller schools.
5. Flex political muscle. From keeping its schools open (which saves billions in taxpayer money) to fighting government healthcare insurance mandates for abortion and birth control, success in the public arena only occurs when muscle is flexed It’s time for Catholics to take their rightful place at the political table, as all other religions do (despite having far fewer members). But that means playing hardball, unabashedly making its issues front and center in primary and general elections. The power of a newly awakened tiger — one that has shed its paper skin — would be an unmatched political force. But that power will only exist if people once again believe in their Church.
6. Allow priests to marry.  And yes, consider allowing women to enter the priesthood.  This would ease the resentment felt by many women towards a Church that treats them like second-class citizens. Even more important, women and married priests are the only measures that can ensure the Church’s survival. We can play with the numbers, pretending that seminary vocations are up, but the stark reality is that if nothing changes, there soon won’t be a Catholic Church in the traditional sense. The cock has been crowing a lot more than three times — more like 30 years — and yet the denials from Church leaders continue. The clock is ticking.
An all-male, celibate clergy has its origins in human, not divine, history. Forget Dan Brown theories as to whether Jesus was actually married. Priests were married (and possibly even a Pope or two), and were for centuries, with some historians placing that practice at over 1,000 years. While it was abolished for “religious” reasons, the real impetus was rooted in property rights. But since God invented annuities and life insurance in the 20th century, that problem has been solved. Married clergy certainly seems to be working in the other religions (who don’t have nearly the old age and pedophile problems), so the Church needs to get with the times.
*****
Keep the faith but fight the corruption.  That should be the ultimate factor in choosing the next pope.  It doesn’t get any simpler, or more poignant, than that.
If such a leader can preach a positive message, modernize without compromise, and wield a political sledgehammer, then prayers for a reinvigorated flock will be answered, keeping Christ’s Church alive far into the future.

Chris Freind’s work can be found at FreindlyFire.Com

 

Pope Resigning Is Miracle For Church