Wednesday, November 25, 2009

the Manhattan Declaration - Time for Civil Disobedience?

A couple of blogs ago, I wrote that it was time for the sleeping Christians to wake up and stop our country from an ever plunging downward spiral to total immorality and depravity.

Apparently, other Christians and Catholics have come to the same conclusion and have drafted a document called "the Manhattan Declaration". In the Manhattan Declaration, it is stated that Christians will NOT tolerate nor participate in three urgent issues:

  • Life Issues like abortion, euthanesia and embryo destructive stem cell research

  • Sanctioning same se/x marriage

  • Persecution of individuals for practicing their faith (calling teaching against illicit se/x etc a "hate crime")

Sadly, the dealbreaker which seems to have awakened the sleeping giant was the third point. I say, "sadly" because it seems that 35 years of our slaughtering the unborn to the tune of 1.4 million unborn babies a year (99 percent which are NOT the so called "hard cases" i.e. rape and incest) wasn't enough to get folks upset enough. It took threatening their very persons to get them to wake up.

Religious persecution has been happening all along, worldwide. One estimate put the number of priests and other Christians who suffered martyrdom in the last 30 years to be at an all time high but suddenly with the election of a president who likely is Christian in name only (if that- they have film clips of him ridiculing the Bible) and a "hate crimes" law in Canada, things are getting closer to home and it's getting a bit "hot in the kitchen" so to speak.

For example, in Canada, a Bishop was arrested and tried for a "hate crime" - his offense? Writing a letter to the Catholics in HIS diocese stating the Catholic teachings on same se/x marriage which is considered an "intrinsic evil".

The Bishop was released but not before he spent thousands of dollars in his defense.

In Washington, two Senators are going after the Catholic Bishops committee because they told Congress they would not support a Health Care Bill which used tax moneys to pay for abortions.

In New Jersey, a Methodist church is being sued because they refused to rent out their hall to a same se/x couple who wanted to use it for a "wedding" reception.

And in Massachusetts, the only state in the union where same s/ex marriage is legal, Catholic Charities, the largest adoption agency in the USA which has placed thousands of children, had to close its doors or be forced to place children in homes considered not healthy according to their beliefs. Also, children in that state in public schools are taught that s/s marriage is a valid lifestyle regardless of what the parents would like their children taught. Parents are told they don't have a say in what their kids are taught.

All over the country, though, persecution against religion especially Christianity, is increasing. Parents tell stories like their children are not allowed to wear teashirts to school with a religious theme because that's a "hate crime". One child was told that she couldn't tell her friends at recess about her First Communion. Stories like that are too prevalent to ignore the trend.

Also in public schools, it's ok to teach Islam and witchcraft, but NOT ok to EVEN MENTION Christianity or Judaism.

With the "hate crimes" bill in effect and the possible sanctioning of unrestricted abortion in health care, we face a new peril i.e. health care workers being forced to act against their moral code, Catholic hospitals possibly closing their doors because of being forced to do abortions and more.

And so the sleeping majority is beginning to wake up.

Will the Manhattan Declaration lead to "Civil disobedience"? One of the clergypersons told Fox News he hoped not but if people are forced to do immoral acts like abortion, it may lead to that, like, he pointed out, Martin Luther King led civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws. (How ironic that a president who has Martin Luther King and the civil rights activists to thank for his being ABLE To be elected is oppressing believers - he should know better).

The real irony of this is that many Christians swallowed their distaste for the millions of abortions and other problems and voted for this president because of his promises to fix the economy and end the war. Barack Obama has ESCALATED the war with no end in sight and has spent almost up to the limit for the national debt some 11 trillion dollars, very little of which the American people have seen. It's true you can buy a car now for a couple of thousand bucks cheaper than you could a few years ago but who's buying with unpaid furloughs and lay-offs and pay cuts. Medicare premiums will go double in the next few years, we are told.

And the unemployment percentage is at 17 percent which is higher than it was in the Great Depression of the 1930's - it was 15 percent then. But as Mr Obama laughingly told one of the late night talk show hosts, "So much for campaign promises".

In the meantime, Christians may be called upon to act the part, perhaps for the first time in a couple of hundred years.

Opposition from the world is the price we pay for following Christ. No pain, no gain. Why should that surprise us? If living the Gospel were easy, all the world would be saints. But the Gospel is demanding. It rubs against our fallen human nature. It demands of us — and even makes us unpopular. Why? Because people who do good are a thorny reminder to those who don´t. It shouldn´t surprise us that the neighbors look down on us for having so many kids. Or that the guys in the dorm snicker at us for living chastely. Or that the boss overlooks us for a promotion because we wouldn´t donate to that pro-abortion group last Christmas during the company fund drive. Do I realize that to be a Christian is to be persecuted?

-- Father Edward McIlmail, LC

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Book Review: The Year of Living like Jesus by Ed Dobson

NOTE: this book was provided for review by Zondervan.

The cover of Pastor Ed Dobson's "the Year of living like Jesus" states "It may appear from the cover as a nice book about growing a beard because Jesus did but be warned..."

Dr. Ed Dobson was diagnosed with ALS, 9 years ago and told he had 2-5 years of life left. As he says in one of his videos on the Ed's Story website , a website about his journey with ALS, he thought if he were diagnosed with a terminal disease, that's when he would get serious about praying and reading the Bible but he is finding that rather, he is concentrating on living his life to the fullest for as long as God has him here.

He likely has the type of ALS that Stephen Hawking has (very slowly progressive) so he might be here for a while yet and he seems to be making the best of it for now, as far as enjoying a bit of fame. He's appeared on "Good Morning America" and is apparently doing some book tours with this book I am reviewing. He's also on Twitter (according to his "tweets" he's on the road now) and has a blog website called, ""

It seems Reverend Ed Dobson who has accomplished a lot in his life (pastored a church for several years, worked with Jerry Falwell and even done some TV work) is a charming sort of man as well as clever and well educated. He is very highly respected as an evangelical Pastor and was voted "Pastor of the year" in 1993 by the Moody Bible Institute.

In "THE YEAR OF LIVING LIKE JESUS", Dr Dobson spins a good tale and does acquaint the reader with several stories from the Gospels, re-told in an understandable manner. He also includes interesting experiences with observing Jewish law, dress and Kosher cuisine.

But he (like many clever people, I would suppose) is anything but conventional. His living like Jesus did not extend to things becoming inconvenient for him. His fasting for 40 days ended up being 1 day. He also enjoyed comfortably traveling in a vintage Corvette and had a difficult time parting with his tailor made suits, although he wrote that this might be the right thing to do if he really wanted to "live like Jesus".

In sharing his accumulated wealth with the poor, he wrote

"Of course I wasn't willing to give everything away, my house, my cars, my savings and my retirement. But I thought Lorna and I could give away one or two week's salary. Then we'd have to trust God to meet our needs."

Dobson did in fact, he said, go into bars to reach those who would never darken a church door and have a beer with them and perhaps show a view of a Christian which they could better tolerate than the traditional view. He wrote:

"I would often go down to the bar, sit up at the counter, drink a beer and talk about God, which Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard,"

This seems to be taking the Bible out of context to me - something which is easier to do if one is not guided by the Roman Catholic Magesterium and left to one's own devices in interpreting the Bible. As Fr Corapi on EWTN says, "You can use the bible to prove ANYTHING!". Very true.

Dr Dobson also stated that he was finding atheists and agnostics easier to deal with than some Christians because they were "less judgmental". Although it is easy to get that idea, one finds that they are only "less judgmental" when you don't get TOO much into what Jesus taught. I find that in my later years when I have become closer to the church, I am not popular at all. But of course, neither was Jesus.

In the Wikipedia, in his biography, it states that although he worked with Jerry Falwell, he, by 1980, had decided the "Moral Majority" had been wrongheaded about politics changing the country.

By the time, he wrote "The Year of Living Like Jesus", he seems to have drifted from Conservatism enough to justify abortion as not being an important issue "because Jesus never mentioned it" and voted for Obama because he felt Obama more exemplified what Jesus taught, a stance which endeared him to the media. He still loves Jerry Falwell, he stated on "Twitter" and wishes Jerry would call him. He lamented that he upset Conservatives with his voting decision, though not too much - apparently he felt that his stance about disregarding the 5000 unborn killed daily as a non issue and voting for Obama was right and Conservatives are incorrect and perhaps not "Jesusly" about this issue.

I personally felt that he should not have spent time on politics at all in a book about a spiritual journey but that's my opinion. I do NOT think abortion is a non issue and I feel that Jesus who is the Word of God through Whom "all was created" (see John 1:1 ff) would NOT advocate voting for a candidate financed by the abortion industry who openly promises abortion providers that he will advocate unrestricted abortion (whether the American people want that or not). And of course, it's questionable that a politician who does not have concern for the youngest and weakest of humans would really have concern for the poor, and disabled humans already born.

Perhaps this is what I found less than inspiring about this book. It often seems to express more the worldly view rather than the strictly Christian view.

That is, we don't have to grow a beard, nor eat Kosher food, nor attend services in a synagogue to live like Jesus - we just have to love one another, reach out to those in need, share more than what is comfortable, pray a lot and stand up courageously for "truth, justice and the American way" which is often less than endearing in our world as well as, a most difficult thing to do. My impression of Rev. Dobson's walk was that it was, perhaps a bit lacking in the hard line things about living like Jesus - you know, the things which eventually got Jesus crucified.

What might be interesting to Catholics is that Rev Dobson did pray the Rosary at least some of the time and found it a good way of praying. Perhaps one day, he might be appearing on EWTN's "Journey Home" program as one who has decided to return to the Mother church. Stranger things have happened. We never know where a journey will end.

If I found some of Rev Dobson's stands to be less than inspiring, I also found his candor and honesty, very refreshing. He seems to be up front with how he is feeling which is a very good quality and definitely (as he would say) "Jesusly".

Would I recommend the book? Ed Dobson states in his blog that:

"I wrote this book for those on the fringes of the faith. People who are interested in Jesus but not "the church." I did not write for those who are in the church. My passion has always been for those who are "unchurched."

I do agree that this book would be interesting and intriguing for the very group Rev. Dobson mentioned above - the unchurched, the agnostics and so forth, an entertaining way to acquaint yourself with what Christianity teaches and providing you with much food for thought. Also for those with a terminal illness or who are dealing with disability, perhaps this book (and also the Ed's Story website) might be very inspiring and helpful for you. As for the serious mainline Christian or Catholic, you might consider giving it a try - whether you agree with Rev Dobson or not, you certainly will find "The Year of Living Like Jesus", intriguing and a good read.

This book is available on Amazon or for more information please visit Dr Ed's website,

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Time for the sleeping Majority to wake up and get activist

Obama's new strategy

Recently President Obama has come out strongly, saying he will work to destroy the protections for traditional marriage. (The Protection of Marriage Act was signed by President Clinton). The Gay and Lesbian community is delighted of course. And nasty. On Facebook, I expressed concern about Obama receiving the Peace Prize and one "friend" who is gay, and supposedly a long time friend in real life, has dropped both myself and hubby from his friendship.

I asked myself why our president is catering to this small minority and then, I realized why.

They may be a small minority but they have learned what the Christian majority has NOT YET learned and that is that activism works.

The Gay and Lesbian community unlike the mostly sleeping passive Christians, is loud and "in your face" and activist and Obama figures they will help him trample on Christian morals and rights -- again.

In the meantime, Congress is rushing through, Healthcare "reform" which is actually pushing us toward a government option which will pay for killing babies in the womb but NOT PAY FOR procedures for the elderly (they have in place a board which will figure out the cost vs the "years of life left" and pay or not pay on that basis).

Republicans have been totally shut out of the sessions formulating these bills and Democrats are hoping that they have enough of a majority to push it through Congress. They are "fast tracking it" as a "budget reform" bill.

Who will pay for the 850 billion bucks it will cost in the next 10 years? Mostly the middle class in greatly raised premiums and taxes. (Obama promised to NOT stick it to the middle class but of course, his promises are worthless).

What is their hope? That the Christians will stay apathetic and passive and will forget about being trampled on, in 6 months when the 2010 election happens.

Are they right about this? What IS going to make us angry enough to vote EN MASSE and get rid of these no good politicians and especially this president? What is going to make us angry enough to stop abortion, to stop the mass killing of babies? What is going to make us angry enough to put some REAL pressure on Congress to behave themselves and stop trampling upon, not only the majority of Americans but also all the values upon which this country was founded?

There is a famous story about a Christian church during the holocaust - this church was located close to a railroad, where trains ran carrying hundreds of Jews and others, screaming for help, to the place where they were tortured and killed. If a train ran by during the service, the minister would simply tell the organist to "play louder" so to drown out the cries of agonizing humans.

Are we who continue to allow these unspeakable acts against the very most vulnerable of human beings, all that different from the folks in the German church?

This is how sick these people are - this woman, a late term abortionist, describes untold horrors about abortion and says abortionists should "get honest" about the "downsides" so they can "continue to help women". This was published in a medical journal called "Reproductive Health"

Lisa Harris describes aborting a second trimester pre born baby while she was pregnant

Please watch this clip from "Judgment in Nuremberg" - if we do not fight this holocaust of human unborn which is beginning to extend to the elderly and handicapped, then we are also allowing it to happen and are a party to unspeakable crime!

Remember, Germany's problems started with the legalization of abortion, 20 years before the Jewish holocaust and then, with the election of a power drunk individual who sold himself and his administration on economic issues.

"Who does not study history is doomed to repeat it"

"All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to remain silent" (Raymond Burke)

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Mr President, the American people can read

The protesters to the so called Health Care reform of Obama's, are not (as Obama says) "lying" or "terrorists" but simply asking questions about things stated IN THE BILL for which we have received NO ANSWERS TO DATE other than to trust Obama which is hard to do with ANY politician and especially one who has broken a lot of his campaign promises very early in his term. The following blog - by a lady who read EVERY WORD of the health care bill (HR 3200) expresses well, concerns and questions many of us have. Now can anyone really ANSWER these concerns with other than calling us liars and conspirators and terrorists or telling us to "trust Obama"?

Mr. President -- American Citizens Can Read . . . .

Most Americans, including Republicans, favor real health care reform . . . . we just don't want a government takeover of our health care . . . and neither do the majority of the American people. The townhalls (those not staged, that is) show frustration more than anger. Are you listening? People want reform, not a dismantling of the system. Where are the true reforms like limiting malpractice? Where are the efforts to cut down the real fraud committed by some?

Why are many concerned citizens (including many moderate democrats and independents) being stereotyped as a vast right wing "unAmerican" conspiracy "mob." You disparage those who disagree with you by stating they created the problem and you don't want to hear from them.. . . so they need to sit down and shut up. Those were not your exact words, but it certainly is the message you conveyed.

You campaigned on the promise of a more transparent and open government . . . so far, I see little evidence of any CHANGE . . . except for more behind the scenes negotiations to further a very liberal agenda. The health care reform issue only highlights that you believe when citizens ask questions -- it is enough to just say . . . "Trust me, health care reform will reduce costs, expand coverage, and improve quality." Well, Mr. President, that is NOT enough! Apparently, the idea that American citizens would actually read the proposed bills and ask SPECIFIC questions never occurred to you.

Believe it or not, private citizens are intelligent and understand that under the government plan costs will go up -- not down -- and the only way government can control costs is through additional taxes and by rationing services. The House bill creates a new “Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research” to gather data and to determine which treatments and drugs are the most cost-effective in handling particular medical cases. Would you please explain how a panel of “experts” (chosen by politicians) who establish a standardized one-size-fits-all treatment based on their cost effectiveness will improve the health of American citizens? Cost effective to whom?

Would you explain why a new Health Care Commissioner, appointed by you, Mr. President, would have the unprecedented authority to determine what is "acceptable" health care coverage and establish the rules for what ALL health care coverage MUST include. And be honest, doesn't that MUST include coverage include abortions? If it does not, why are there attempts to block amendments that specifically prohibit the use of tax-payers money for abortions? The Health Care Commissioner which you will be appointment will also have the authority to determine what treatments patients could receive and at what cost. Who would you appoint as the new Commissioner to have this awesome responsibility? One of your present "czars" perhaps? Personally, I have concerns about the ideologies of some of these "advisers."

Would you please explain how "if we like our current insurance, we can keep it" will not be affected by the requirement that private insurers must comply with new coverage and underwriting rules in order to offer insurance? Oh, by-the-way, was the 5-year grace period included in the House bill so you could publicly state this claim? Would it not be more honest to say "if we like our current insurance, it is grandfathered for 5-years?"

Would you please explain why health insurance should be mandatory for ALL but only cost those who can afford to pay for it? Most Americans cannot really afford health insurance -- but responsible citizens make health care a priority and "budget" for the cost. Compassionate citizens acknowledge there are some who absolutely cannot pay for their health care and agree that taxpayers should. But Mr. President, do you really expect the American people not to complain when they see recipients of Medicaid, food stamps, free school lunches, subsidized-housing, etc. wearing $140.00 tennis shoes, designer jeans, carrying cell-phones and I-pods? Since many of those presently uninsured will be going into Medicaid programs, shouldn't some attempt be made for abuse prevention? How many of the uninsured which will be covered under this reform are not even in this country legally? Now that's abusive -- to average, everyday, tax-paying citizens.

While you are at it, would you give the American people an estimate of how much this health care reform is going to "grow government" -- I came up with at least 3 new agencies, a powerful new Commissioner, 3 or 4 advisory panels, 2 task forces, and a medical device registry, before I gave up the count ! ! ! And you really want the American people to believe that the government is not going to micro-manage their health care? Really?

And, by-the-way, isn't the authority of the HHS Secretary to use electronic transactions to determine an individual's financial responsibility AT THE POINT OF SERVICE, including whether the individual is "eligible for a specific service, with a specific physician, at a specific facility" just a little invasive on American citizens? To say nothing of being an administrating nightmare? Is it really necessary when a machine-readable health plan benefits identification card will be issued as set out in the House bill?

These are only some of the questions which American citizens would like to have answered. Would you please enlighten us with some truthful detailed answers instead of the partial truths and meaningless talking points we continue to hear. Yes, Mr. President, Americans can read . . . . and buckets with holes will not hold water!

I am signing my real name . . . just in case someone forwards this information by email to others who might view this text as "fishy."

-- Diana Schwab --

Thanks for Diana for her permission to share...

Monday, July 13, 2009

President Obama and the Pope - what REALLY happened

As we can expect, the meeting between President Obama and Pope Benedict XVI was badly misreported, even by Catholic news service. We must read the news media critically, remembering that reporters are often given deadlines in terms of HOURS which is all too often, not NEAR the time they need to research stories, let alone, write them up for publication.

While not expecting reporters to do what they physically can't, we need to realize that on certain subjects such as medical studies or Papal encyplicals, the media is about the worst source you can read, EVEN groups like Catholic News Service.

So I researched the meeting with a source who actually interviewed Fr Frederico Lombardi, spokesperson for the Vatican (Raymond Arroyo of EWTN).

As for what the encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, really says, I did the best type of research - I read it in its entirety, myself spending about 4 hours, studying it, carefully.

Unlike the media has suggested, it's not a wimpy document but rather as strong in its condemnation of abortion, euthanesia, same sex marriage and immorality as is Humana Vitae or the "Gospel of Life" but newly profound in that it presents an extremely strong argument for the need for ALL development; economic, technological, medical, sociological or otherwise, to be ROOTED in truth and morality and THE PROFOUND respect for human life from conception to natural death, and states rather bluntly that unless it IS thus rooted, it will not only fail but also, have a destructive effect on society.

Benedict gave Obama, as a gift, an autographed copy of "Caritas in Veritate", his newly released encyclical. And it DOES get specific, least one might misunderstand, so if Obama really reads this extremely profound document, he will INDEED, get an eye-full.

It is rather certain, however, that the Pope in his meeting with Obama reiterated some of what he wrote in "Caritas in Veritate".

And to underline the seriousness of the life issues at stake, he also gave Obama a copy of the instruction, "Dignitus Personae" the Vatican's 2008 document on bioethics and respect for human life and condemning, embryonic stem cell research.

Fr Frederico Lombardi, the Vatican's spokesman said "there is no need to hide it - giving the book to the President was to be clear it was NOT polemical." (an attempt to teach the President 'here is WHAT WE BELIEVE and WHY WE BELIEVE IT').

Fr Lombardi also said the president told the Pope he was "committed to reducing the number of abortions" but recently the administration under great pressure from the abortion providers (who financed Obama's campaign) stated that it sees good reason to reduce the NEED for abortions but NOT THE NUMBER of abortions now being performed.

So what BHO told the Pope would represent a "reversal of policy" however, on the home front the Administration is doing as some prolife folks suspected they would do i.e. passing "FOCA" in small segments as attached to other bills.

Thus the Catholic News Service article which stated that the Vatican said Obama has not done any harm to the pro-life cause yet, was incorrect. He is INDEED, fulfilling his promises to the abortion providers who financed his campaign.

Here is just what recently transpired in the last week:

  • According to the Catholic Family Institute, the Obamas have introduced "sweeping language on abortion rights" at the United Nations calling for "universal access to reproductive health and family planning services". (U-N-speak for abortion and contraception)

  • And in Washington, a Senate panel has passed legislation that would codify into law, President Obama's January directive to fund abortion promoters and providers overseas, a reversal of the so called Mexico city policy instituted by Bush which stopped this funding. NOTE: This was an E.O. but Obama wants to make it a law, so it can NOT be easily reversed by the next president.

  • Meanwhile on Capital Hill, a Senate committee drafting the Health Care reform bill this week, accepted language that COMPELS insurance companies to pay for abortions. The amendment was Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski's and it was accepted by one vote.

  • Finally on Monday last week, the NIH released guidelines for the President's decision to fund "embryo DESTROYING" embryonic stem cell research. The National Catholic Bishop's committee complained about the broader guidelines and pointed out that the comments of 30,000 people objecting to these guidelines on the NIH site, were ignored (Comments were solicited by the administration about these guidelines)

This last action is progressing full speed ahead, even though embryonic stem cell therapy has been declared by several scientists to be a "dead end research" because in all the rat studies and one human study (in Asia) the transplantation of embryonic stem cells has not cured any disease but has CAUSED the growth of cancerous tumors.

(Dr Oz, Oprah's medical advisor pointed out on National TV, that if this dead end research is funded, other stem cell research which is ALREADY CURING DISEASE (as well as being ethical and NOT destroying any kind of human life) is denied funding.)

The acting director of the NIH said it wasn't a question of whether embryonic stem cell research should be funded but HOW it should be funded.

Every one of the above actions was CONDEMNED STRONGLY by the Pope's new encyplical, Caritas in Veritate which I have now READ in entirety and I would suggest that every Catholic (and educated person) do same if they can possibly swing it: Link to document on the Vatican website

The following is a taste of how incredibly profound Caritas in Veritate is:

Here's what the Pope said about abortion (in part - although respect for human life is woven throughout the document):

"we must not underestimate the disturbing scenarios that threaten our future, or the powerful new instruments that the "culture of death" has at its disposal.

To the tragic and widespread scourge of abortion we may well have to add in the future - indeed it is already surreptiously present - the systematic eugenic programming of births.

At the other end of the spectrum, a pro-euthanasia mindset is making inroads as an equally damaging assertion of control over life that under certain circumstances is deemed no longer worth living.

Underlying these scenarios are cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity. These practices in turn foster a materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human life. Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not human? What is astonishing is the arbitrary and selective determination of what to put forward today as worthy of respect.

Insignificant matters are considered shocking, yet unprecedented injustices seem to be widely tolerated.

While the poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich, the world of affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those knocks, on account of a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human.
(Paragraph 75: Caritas in Veritate)

Here's what the Pope wrote about drugs (and what he might have discussed with President Obama):

The new forms of slavery to drugs and the lack of hope into which so many people fall can be explained not only in sociological and psychological terms but also in essentially spiritual terms. The emptiness in which the soul feels abandoned, despite the availability of countless therapies for body and psyche, leads to suffering. There cannot be holistic development and universal common good unless people's spiritual and moral welfare is taken into account, considered in their totality as body and soul.(paragraph 76 Caritas in Veritate)

He referred to the widespread rejection of God as the greatest obstacle to development stating that:

"A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism." (paragraph 78)

He strongly advocates that marriage MUST BE between a MAN and a WOMAN suggesting that otherwise can be nothing but destructive.

Also he gives a set of rather strong reasons why decreasing the population is a bad idea:

"Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not least to the size of their population and the talents of their people. On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies.

The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called 'replacement level', also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the 'brain pool' upon which nations can draw for their needs.

Furthermore, smaller and at times miniscule families run the risk of impoverishing social relations, and failing to ensure effective forms of solidarity. These situations are symptomatic of scant confidence in the future and moral weariness. " (paragraph 44 Caritas in Veritate)

What he might have told Obama about Immigration is this:

"We are all witnesses of the burden of suffering, the dislocation and the aspirations that accompany the flow of migrants. The phenomenon, as everyone knows, is difficult to manage; but there is no doubt that foreign workers, despite any difficulties concerning integration, make a significant contribution to the economic development of the host country through their labour, besides that which they make to their country of origin through the money they send home. Obviously, these labourers cannot be considered as a commodity or a mere workforce. They must not, therefore, be treated like any other factor of production. Every migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance" (paragraph 62).

On Poverty:

Poverty is often produced by a rejection of God's love, by man's basic and tragic tendency to close in on himself, thinking himself to be self-sufficient or merely an insignificant and ephemeral fact, a “stranger” in a random universe. (paragraph 53)

And about the environment, he states that although nature is a gift from God to be treated with utmost respect, we cannot respect Nature while disrespecting the sanctity of human life.

Love, stated the Pope, without respect for human life and without being founded in the truth, becomes the opposite thereof:

"Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word 'love' is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite." (Paragraph 1)

My favorite one liner! (AMEN!!!):

Pope Paul VI noted that 'the world is in trouble because of the lack of thinking' (paragraph 53)

Finally in the conclusion, he urges ALL to PRAY - at least to pray the "Our Father" often:

"In union with the only-begotten Son, may all people learn to pray to the Father and to ask him, in the words that Jesus himself taught us, for the grace to glorify him by living according to his will, to receive the daily bread that we need, to be understanding and generous towards our debtors, not to be tempted beyond our limits, and to be delivered from evil (cf. Mt 6:9-13)."

Basically, if you thought "Humana Vitae" (which turned out to include extremely profound predictions on what destruction on the family and human life, the encouragement of contraception would bring) and "The Gospel of Life" (JP II) were strong, know that "Caritas in Veritate" is EQUALLY strong and utterly profound in so much that it is so INCLUSIVE and actually presents an excellent case of why the survival of society DEPENDS upon morality, and ethics and a strong reliance on God, being THE FIRST REASON for all decisions even in things like economics and politics.

Mistake not - this is not only NOT the wimpy document the news media made it out to be but rather bound to go down in history as one of Benedict XVI/Ratzinger's greatest and most profound writings (in a life characterized by profound thinking and great contributions to society).

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Great book: Tour de Force by Elizabeth White

So are you tired of the endless "love stories" in books and TV where love is defined as hopping into the sack on the first date and shacking up long before marriage is ever discussed?

And are you looking for a story which not only mentions God but has a theme of God running through it which is about REAL people with real life situations?

Sounds like Elizabeth White's TOUR DE FORCE may be the right book for you! But Caution, it's also an exciting page turner so you may not be able to put it down (that DID happen to me as I became interested in the exciting plot of this book and I enjoyed every moment!)

TOUR DE FORCE takes place among ballerinas in a New York setting and in Alabama (the author is apparently from Alabama!) and plunges you into the colorful world of the professional ballet, a world which those of us not involved wouldn't have a chance to experience otherwise. White pens skillfully, painting clear images of the world of ballet, the experiences and feelings of a ballerina - so well, that the reader actually feels what it's like to BE a dancer.

The main characters in TOUR DE FORCE are people the reader gets to know well - the book is so much fun, it's almost a disappointment to get to the end of it!

And it HAS a happy ending (another thing we don't see much of these days!).

Intertwined throughout the whole book is a refreshing morality - not at all "preachy" but just refreshing - people are NOT hopping into the sack and human situations arise but are treated with charity.

TOUR DE FORCE is not a "romance" but a REAL LOVE story of the type we seldom see these days! The type of story where two people, one of them a young prima ballerina named Gilly Kinkaid and the other, a director named Jacob, slowly begin to realize that they are the soul mates God has picked out for each other. Gilly and Jacob are real people, not Holy Card figures, but people we can relate to. The well written book with many surprise events (and even some mystery!) - leaves the reader on the edge of his/her seat until the last page!

This is one of the most delightful fictional works I have read in a long time and I think if you are a reader of this blog you WILL enjoy the book immensely - I would really recommend it ... click here to for more info

To read more about the author, here's her blog.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

a REAL commencement speaker - Steve Jobs

Stanford University was a lot smarter than Notre Dame in their choice of a commencement speaker. While Obama droned on about coming to a “common ground” on what HE called “irreconcilable differences” about beliefs in abortion (like that’s really relevant to graduating seniors… NOT… BHO TOTALLY politicized his speech but stupid ND for choosing him!), this speaker in the youtube below, Steve Jobs, shared about his life and how he ended up making a success with no college education (he was a college dropout and also was adopted – his birth mother didn’t want him – good she didn’t believe in abortion, isn’t it) and ends with advice everyone can use regardless of their religious or moral beliefs.

I found this interesting and one of the best commencement speeches I’ve ever heard – it’s short only 15 minutes but worth listening to. It would have been “the right thing” for Notre Dame, a Catholic institution, to select a keynote speaker who did not oppose Catholic moral teachings. But often the “right thing” is also the smarter thing as you may agree when you listen to Steve Jobs speak:

Sunday, May 17, 2009

80 year old Catholic priest arrested for quietly protesting

Besides the questions we might ask like why would a CATHOLIC University call the police on an 80 year old Catholic priest and some of his friends who were quietly walking around campus, carrying a cross and pro life signs, the bigger question we might ask (well there are several) is what is happening to freedom of speech? We would have never seen THIS type of thing even a decade ago!

Our generation cries in outrage at the death of a dog but ignores the deaths of millions of unborn babies? Is upset about a rough interrogation of some terrorist enemy of the country to get information to save lives but not upset about the ripping apart of a baby in the womb for the convenience of the adults?

And a Catholic school which charges thousands of bucks a semester to offer a safe environment in which parents can be assured their young folks will be protected from things Catholics feel are immoral, violating this trust which is not only against Catholic principles but is CHEATING those parents who have entrusted their progeny to this school?

These ARE hard times. Christians need to take back our country soon before it's too late.

Watch and weep:

Friday, April 10, 2009

Dr Oz announces that embryonic stem cells are a dead end and will NOT be the cure!

One of the IMPORTANT agendas in this administration is embryonic stem cell research and it's a complex issue about which we are only getting partial information. The Catholic church is against this because it wastes a human life even in the embryo but it's a hard issue because the question is, since there are so many embryos already created in the test tube so to speak, what to do with them? Is it right, the pundits argue, to allow them to die when they possibly could help many people in finding a cure for horrible diseases like Parkinson's? The issue is so confusing that few know the difference between DIFFERENT TYPES of stem cells (less undifferentiated vs totally undifferentiated which is what embryonic stem cells are) or what "stem cells" even ARE. But most folks have seen the poignant films of Michael J. Fox shaking a lot, begging the voter to allow this "life saving" research.

Note: Some experts pointed out that Fox's sometimes shaking can be caused by a double dose of his medication, a statement which the news media condemned folks for uttering ("how heartless") and yet, on the Oprah show, Michael J. Fox admitted that his medication sometimes causes him to shake MORE.

Back to embryonic stem cell research, I had read quite a bit about it, but it was all coming from Catholic sources and knowing the creditability Catholic sources have (sadly) even among Catholics, I figured "who's going to believe THEM?" and thus, I have kept silent on the issue and continued to do more research.

My research has pointed out that they have done rat studies on doing embryonic stem cell implants with disastrous results... the stem cells grew tumors and killed all the rats! I did find evidence of this on the web although anything AGAINST embryonic stem cells is hard to find since it's such a political football for the pro abortion side!

Supposedly there was a small human study on Parkinson's patients with an embryonic stem cell implant with the same disastrous results as in the rat study... the patients who had the implants, so goes the story, all died because the embryonic stem cells grew tumors in their brains. But unfortunately, I have NOT been able to find evidence of this study on the web AT ALL so did not feel "ethical" in reporting about it. I waited, PENDING...

Well, folks, the PENDING has happened. The exploding of the truth of how embryonic stem cells have CURED nothing and on the contrary are a dead end research, and on national TV, FROM a respected physician, and author and ON a hostile source at that, the Oprah show (Oprah is extremely in favor of embryonic stem cell research and was in fact, pushing it on that show before Dr Oz made his unexpected announcement!).

Here is the video which the Oprah show has NOW removed from! But it happened because I just happened to have recorded that show (wanted to see Dr Oz and Michael J Fox) and I backed it up when I heard Dr Oz make that announcement and sure enough!!! He actually DID say that.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

time is marching on - are we??

Hi anyone who is reading this. Do you ever feel frustrated? I feel like that right now. Because basically most parts of the pro life movement (OK I will admit there are a few mavericks in the crowd and I'll give their websites later) are proceeding using the same strategies which have NOT worked for us in the past - not really as shown by our total and unutterable loss on this last election.

As we speak, the Democrats and Obama are busy unraveling everything we've done in 35 years.

According to Randall Terry (and I SO AGREE with him!!!) we only have one option left to us. To educate the people and make SURE we fire a bunch of Congress persons in 2010. We can get a pro life majority again in Congress if we START working now.

As far as "alerting" the pundits, it doesn't do any good. The only thing the march in Washington did is the warn the media to intensify their efforts to smear pro lifers in the press - thus the lastest bunch of insults calling us "terrorists" etc. We got by some estimates over 400,000 in Washington and who knows how many more in San Francisco (TOTAL media silence on that march).

In other words, we alerted THE WRONG people.

Remember Teddy Roosevelt's advice? "Walk softly but carry a BIG STICK!" We should be making FAR LESS NOISE and FAR MORE PLANS.

Randall Terry is leading a great effort - please go to his website - let's join with him. A humble plea He says too, "LET'S FIRE THESE PEOPLE IN 2010". With a targeted vote, we CAN get back, at least, a majority in Congress which would go a long way to neutralize the untold damage being done to our cause as we speak.

Randall has joined the Catholic Church by the way and one thing we REALLY need to do is educate the Catholics because 52 percent of us voted for Obama and the Democrats in this last election. We need to get those folks back in OUR camp. If you go to Randall's website, Randall has ideas of how to do that.

The other real activist pro life group is "Priests for Life". Fr Frank Pavone, the head of PFL is dynamic and brilliant. Again he is about educating the public and working toward firing more than a few politicians in 2010 (that's only ONE YEAR FROM NOW). They have some excellent literature on their website. See them at Priests for

If we focus in our support in aligning with these two groups, I think we can achieve what we need to do which is work toward stopping the killing.

As individuals, we each need to realize that we should be doing something activist each day. Like praying the Rosary for life. Our lady told the children at Fatima that if only a percentage of Catholics prayed a daily Rosary, WW II could have been stopped.

But we also have to make sure WE are educated. Read Randall's literature. Look at Fr Pavone's photos and listen to his videos and audios. We need to STOP BEING SILENT but to TALK to folks around us. Fr Pavone said on EWTN the other day "there are some lives only YOU can save."

A good example of individual activism is the 73 year old fiddler in San Luis Obispo who plays well enough to gather a large audience at a local restaurant. He ALWAYS, courageously, displays his pro life signs. You can read about him and hear his great playing at

With a focused effort and God on our side, there is no way we canNOT reverse the evils which are happening now and to save those infants being wantonly killed, 9 per minute in the USA.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Pope rebukes Pelosi for her pro abortion stance

It's hard to imagine that Nancy Pelosi actually expected the Pope to agree with her pro abortion stance. I suspect she planned to pose for a picture with him and fudge the details for the news. A picture of the Pope and Pelosi smiling, arm in arm would have been a gem which published without any details might have suggested that despite her pro abortion stance, he approved of Nancy who sells herself as a "good Catholic".

Nancy's hopes were dashed to pieces today, however, when Benedict barred all photographers and reporters from her 15 minute private audience with him. Apparently according to the Vatican press release, Benedict XVI spent most of the 15 minutes instructing Pelosi about the Natural Law and the church's teachings on the Sanctity of life, politely reminding her that her pro abortion stance is putting her "in serious difficulties as a Catholic". He told her it was his duty as her Pastor to warn her about this. Benedict XVI speaks several languages fluently including English so he likely instructed her about the sanctity of life from conception to death without a translator.

Pelosi spun for the news services that she praised him for the church's help in poverty, "Global warming" etc and showed him photos of her family's previous visits to Rome:

"It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, today. In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show His Holiness a photograph of my family’s papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren."

Perhaps his not granting her the Pope-Pelosi photo ala Mother Teresa was the worst insult.

She should be worried about ex-communication. By her getting in his face like that and THEN, misrepresenting the real content of the meeting to the press, she might be in "more serious difficulties" than she previously thought.

Benedict XVI might be polite but he can never be accused of being weak kneed or stupid and Ms Pelosi may well find herself ex-communicated if she does not change her ways.

One might ask why she would care, but if she loses the support of the Catholic vote (and it may bring some of the Evangelical Christians with it) she may lose her job in Congress i.e. be voted out. That she DOES care about... :)

SOURCES: (Zenit)Pope Benedict rebukes Pelosi over abortion

(CNA)Nancy Pelosi tries to spin meeting with Pope Benedict

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

the Media and Pope Benedict XVI

I guess we cannot expect the media to report accurately about the Catholic church since they are basically very anti Catholic. Problem being, of course, that few people realize how much the media lies. (Ironically, they question the Bible but believe the media like Scripture).

Recent stories included one about Pope Benedict XVI lifting the ex-communication from 4 schismatic Bishops, one of whom is a "holocaust denier". The media reported that (especially about the holocaust denier) with glee - it made front page news. They added that the Jewish Community was shocked and upset at this action and intimated that the Bishops had been restored to the status of full Bishops.

But as usual, only part of the story was reported.

First of all, the formerly exCommunicated Bishops do NOT have any Bishop duties or even priestly facilities (meaning they cannot celebrate Mass, do confession etc). They simply now, can receive Communion when they go to church (and also can go to Confession). This is merely the start of a long dialog between the Pope and these Bishops which may or may not end up in reinstating them as priests or Bishops.

Secondly, with reference to the Holocaust denier Bishop, the Pope and the Vatican has given him an ultimatum that if he doesn't PUBLICALLY recant those beliefs, he will be exCommunicated again.

But of course, the above was NOT reported in the media which is still buzzing about how anti Semitic this pope is.

When Pope Benedict visited the USA last time (when he went to see President Bush), he also visited a large Synagogue in Washington and gave the Rabbi there, a gift of an ancient manuscript of the Torah. This was taken from the Vatican collection and is worth so much, it's basically priceless. The Rabbi, in receiving the gift, was totally shocked... his mouth literally fell open at the generosity of this gift.

And of course, not a word about it in the mass media. I only know about it because the Pope's trip was totally covered on EWTN (the Global Catholic Network) and I saw it happen.

And in the "Vatican Section" of they have several speeches the Pope made, visits to Holocaust memorials and more.

Bottom line, if the media says it, it's either wrong or incomplete and very different from the real story.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

250,000 people gather in Wash. but no one noticed

When can there be a gathering of 250,000 people in the nation's capital and yet, much of the country was unaware of it?

Jan 22, only two days after Mr Obama told us all he wanted to be the president of ALL the people, not just liberals, when thousands of rather upset people marched right in front of the White House to the Supreme Court building protesting the millions of unborn children killed each year in abortion.

I looked on the news sources - there was an item about it. Just a short associated press article, among the links of lessor stories if you looked for it. That's all. I would bet the average American wasn't even aware the march happened. And C-span which used to CARRY the march, now had a plethora of other activities in Washington like Pelosi's press conference about the economic bailout which apparently went on, oblivious to the emotional crowd right outside their doors.

Women carrying signs "I regret my abortion", young people - a lot of young people. Priests. Rabbis. And African Americans who were lamenting that abortion is effecting a deadly type of genocide on their race.

All begging Mr Obama to please listen to them. But Mr Obama was no where in view and as far as we know, still would advocate that if his daughter had an unplanned pregnancy that she should go to an abortionist and have his grandchild killed so she wouldn't be "punished with a baby".

It's scary to stand up against the abortion industry because it's a billion dollar industry and because you are standing up to Satan himself but one thing everyone forgets - Satan is just a fallen angel but God is very pro life (since He planned each one of those babies before the beginning of the world so it states in the Bible) and if we DO stand up against the abortion industry, we will have God at our side.

Which means we need to pray a LOT.

To that end, I am starting a new thing. I will fast (in the way we used to for "ember days" i.e. in a healthy manner) on Weds and Fridays, offering it up for life and I will try and say a Rosary every day. I hope some of the readers here will join me because we really need God's help to stop the killing.

In the time you took to read this blog, 9 babies will killed in abortion.

Here I am, holding my greatgranddaughter, born in an unplanned pregnancy. Do I look like I'm being "punished"? How far the world has gotten away from a sane point of view!

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Abortion and Breast Cancer - the medical evidence

This is a photo of my granddaughter. In a touching moment, she needed a hug and went to her daughter to get it - she picked her up while the baby was sleeping and hugged her. This was an unplanned pregnancy and she is only 17 years old. It is so clear to everyone around what a blessing this tiny baby has already been - not only to all of us but to her young mother as well.

She is breast feeding so cutting her risks for breast cancer but if she had, as too much of society thinks, terminated this small life, she would be high risk for breast cancer.

Following is one of the most important articles you will read this year. It not only documents the connection between Komen and Planned Parenthood but also the MEDICAL EVIDENCE for the strong link between abortion and breast cancer and provides the sources to read about the physiology of this and more. Please share the following with your friends, your cybergroups,... or link to this blog. Knowledge is not only power - in this case, it may well save a life as 80,000 women die from breast cancer yearly and abortion is one of the most preventable CAUSES of breast cancer.

----- Original Message -----

From: Karen Malec Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

Dear Friends: A new article by Alisa Harris in World Magazine discusses the relationship between Komen and Planned Parenthood. Her story includes misinformation and omissions about the abortion-breast cancer link for the magazine's Christian readers. Following this message, you will find my open letter to the editor of World Magazine. In that letter, I wrote: "I challenge Komen, the American Cancer Society and other cancer groups that have the audacity to deny the ABC link to either prove Brind wrong or stop misleading women and causing more breast cancers than they prevent."

ACTION ITEM: Write or call the magazine to request a correction. Letters to the editor: Email: Phone: 828-232-5415 Fax: 828-253-1556

Sincerely, Karen Malec Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES "An Open Letter to World Magazine" By Karen Malec, president, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer Re: "Life or death?

ABORTION PRESENT: Group that fights breast cancer maintains troubling ties to Planned Parenthood," By Alisa Harris, January 17, 2008. Available at: article - group that fights breast cancer retains troubling link to Planned Parenthood

Dear editor: A new article in World Magazine discussed the disturbing financial relationship between the breast cancer group, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and an organization that is the primary cause of the breast cancer epidemic in the U.S. - Planned Parenthood.

The author, Alisa Harris, correctly reported that basic medical textbooks acknowledge that full term pregnancies offer women a considerable reduction in breast cancer risk. Logically, that means that the woman who chooses not to have a baby (i.e. by having an abortion) has a higher breast cancer risk than does the one who has a baby. The loss of the protective effect of a full term pregnancy is the first of three ways that abortion is linked with increased breast cancer risk (known as the "ABC link"). Harris' story, however, included inaccuracies and omitted important facts.

Eight medical organizations acknowledge that abortion further raises a woman's risk (independently of the loss of the protective effect of childbearing) by leaving her breasts with more places for cancer to start. [1] I am troubled that Harris left her readers in doubt about the existence of the independent link. She said Komen's officials dispute the independent link because: "In 2003, 100 experts from the National Cancer Institute concluded there was no link between breast cancer and either miscarriages or induced abortions. Harvard University and Oxford University have found similar results in the past two years." If Harris would read the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) workshop conclusions, she would find that the federal agency acknowledged the protective effect of a full term pregnancy, but then blatantly contradicted itself by denying an ABC link.

Research shows that abortions raise risk, but most miscarriages do not raise risk.

The NCI throws up fairy dust and confuses the public by mixing up these effects. More about that later. It is disheartening that Harris did not inform her Christian readers about a shocking quote from Dr. Leslie Bernstein, a lead moderator at the NCI's workshop (which has been called a "political sham"). The quote reveals Bernstein's motivation for concealing the ABC link from the public.

After the workshop, she told a journalist at that an early first full term pregnancy (before age 24) provides women with the best way to prevent the disease, but Bernstein doesn't want women to know about it. She said: "The biggest bang for the buck is the first birth and the younger you are the better off you are...There are so many other messages we can give women about lifestyle modification and the impact of lifestyle and risk that I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk. "I don't want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability. I think it should not be part of the argument." (Available at:

Bernstein's abandonment of fundamental ethical principles is not uncommon among scientists today whose own textbooks encourage them to become activists. (For example, see: Understanding the Fundamentals of Epidemiology: An Evolving Text by Victor J. Schoenbach, Ph.D. and Wayne D. Rosamond, Ph.D. Available at ) The journal Nature published an article, "Scientists behaving badly," in 2005 showing that in an anonymous survey of several thousand career scientists who receive funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an astounding percentage admitted to participating in the most egregious misbehaviours. [2] For instance, 15.5% were willing to admit they had "changed the design, methodology or results of a study in response to pressure from a funding source" (that would be the NIH) within the previous three years. When scientists become unethical, they can do great harm to the dignity of mankind.

The biological reason for the ABC link is extremely compelling, but Harris' article (and even Komen whose mission is to "eradicate breast cancer") omits any discussion of it. Even the most virulently pro-abortion scientists - who (appallingly) testify as expert witnesses for abortion providers in lawsuits challenging state parental notice and consent laws that protect minors from predatory abortion industry practices - have never attempted to refute the biological reason for the ABC link because it is physiologically correct.

Harris, furthermore, inaccurately quoted New Jersey breast cancer surgeon Angela Lanfranchi. Harris wrote: "But Lanfranchi would add that abortions, both spontaneous and induced, create cancer-vulnerable breast tissue...." Lanfranchi's medical journal articles make it abundantly clear that most miscarriages do not raise risk, but abortions do raise risk. [3,4] Most miscarriages are abnormal first trimester pregnancies with low hormonal levels that are insufficient to maintain those pregnancies, but most abortions are normal pregnancies with elevated hormonal levels. Studies have demonstrated that doctors can predict when a woman will have a miscarriage by drawing her blood and measuring hormonal levels.

The ABC link is about cancer-susceptible breast lobules being overexposed to the hormone estrogen, which is known to be a cancer-causing agent. Most of the lobules in a childless woman's breasts consist of cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules. That is where 95% of all cancers originate. During a normal pregnancy, estrogen causes breast growth by stimulating the lobules to multiply, so the woman who has the abortion is left with more places in her breasts for cancers to start (the independent link).

However, the woman who has a full term pregnancy experiences a protective process during the last months of pregnancy known as "differentiation," which by the time of delivery, matures 85% of her lobules into fully cancer-resistant Type 4 lobules. That explains the protective effect of a full term pregnancy. There is strong biological support for the independent link in other related scientific evidence. Similar biological events should have similar results.

Several studies have found that a premature birth before 32 weeks of pregnancy increases breast cancer risk. [5,6,7,8] Why? For the same biological reasons explained above. The mother experiences the same hormonal influence on her breasts as the one who has an abortion. She, too, is left with more places in her breasts for cancers to start. Scientists do not challenge the evidence supporting a link between premature birth before 32 weeks gestation and breast cancer, but they disingenuously challenge any findings that implicate their beloved surgical procedure - abortion - as an independent link for the disease. Komen (and other cancer groups) does not reveal this uncomfortable truth to its supporters either.

A Danish study, Melbye et al. 1997, found a 3% increase in risk for every week of pregnancy that passed before an abortion took place. [9] The biological explanation is very simple. The longer the mother is pregnant before her abortion takes place, the longer she is overexposed to estrogen, and the greater the number of cancer-vulnerable lobules that her breasts grow. Importantly, the Institute of Medicine recognizes abortion as an "immutable medical risk factor for premature birth." [10] The Stop Cancer Coalition in Vancouver reports that some 100 studies support that link.

Therefore, it can be concluded that abortion can cause a woman to have a premature birth in a subsequent pregnancy and - if she gives birth before 32 weeks of pregnancy - it puts her at risk for breast cancer (not to mention the fact that her premature child is at risk for cerebral palsy and other serious conditions). Harris' article omitted other important facts. The overwhelming majority of epidemiological studies report risk increases for women who have had abortions.

One study in 2007 found abortion to be the "best predictor of breast cancer" for eight European nations. [11] Patrick Carroll, a statistician and actuary, proved that he could predict future breast cancer rates for England and Wales for the years 2003 and 2004 with nearly 100% accuracy by using abortion rates. The British insurance magazine, The Actuary, reported his findings in November of 2007 [12]; and the Royal Statistical Society sponsored a panel discussion of it last year.

Strangely, Komen (and other cancer groups supposedly dedicated to the eradication of breast cancer) does not talk about that study either, not even during Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

As for the studies by Oxford and Harvard researchers that Komen likes to use to deny an ABC link, women have a right to know that these studies have been criticized in medical journals for having serious flaws. [13,14] The Oxford study received criticism from four researchers (independently of one another) in five separate medical journals. [15,16,17,18] That fact doesn't seem to faze Komen's officials.

The Harvard study received criticism for violating a basic scientific principle of allowing sufficient time to pass after an abortion before following-up to see how many subjects in the study have developed breast cancer. [19] A minimum follow-up time of eight to ten years is considered ideal. According to Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, opponents of the ABC link are fond of incorporating a lack of follow-up time in the prospective studies that they use to deny an independent link. [19]

In 2005, Brind reviewed 10 prospective studies that abortion zealots use to deny the independent link (including the Oxford study). [20] He concluded that they are severely flawed and cannot be used to deny the much larger body of studies that support that link. Although the journal that published Brind's review has no time limit for critics to send letters proving Brind was wrong, no one has ever challenged his conclusions.

I challenge Komen, the American Cancer Society and other cancer groups that have the audacity to deny the ABC link to either prove Brind wrong or stop misleading women and causing more breast cancers than they prevent.

There is no doubt that Planned Parenthood causes more women to develop breast cancer through its sales of cancer-causing hormonal contraceptives/abortifacients. The World Health Organization assigned combined (estrogen + progestin) oral contraceptives ("the pill") and combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) the highest level of carcinogenicity - Group 1 - in 2006. [21,22] Both contain the same type of drugs - estrogen + progestin.

In the case of combined oral contraceptives (drugs which can be delivered through the pill, IUD, injection, vaginal ring or transdermal patch), exposure often takes place during the most cancer-vulnerable time of a woman's life - before first full term pregnancy when nearly all of her breast lobules are cancer-susceptible Type 1 and 2 lobules. Recognition of a breast cancer risk involving either use of the pill or HRT containing estrogen and progestin also provides additional biological support for an independent link between abortion and breast cancer. The biological basis is the same. It's about cancer-vulnerable breast lobules being overexposed to estrogen while in the presence of progesterone.

According to a 2008 report from STOPP International, Komen gave Planned Parenthood $711,485 between April 2005 and April 2006. [23] Is it reasonable for Komen to entrust Planned Parenthood with the important job of breast cancer screening, even when there are so many legitimate organizations that already carry out this function? Certainly, not!

It is as scandalous and offensive as if the American Lung Association had entrusted the tobacco company, Philip Morris, with funds to screen its customers for lung cancer! Komen's former Latina adviser, Eve Sanchez Silver points out that Planned Parenthood does not even serve the right demographic for breast cancer screening. Planned Parenthood's customers are young people. Breast cancer occurs most often in women 50+ years old.

In conclusion, I ask World Magazine to correct Harris' misinformation. Sincerely,
Karen Malec Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer


1. For a list of the medical organizations recognizing the independent link, see: List of medical orgs recognizing abortion- cancer link

2. Martinson B, Anderson M, de Vries R. Commentary: Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005;435.

3. Lanfranchi A. The science, studies and sociology of the abortion-breast cancer link. Research Bulletin 2005;18:1-8. Available at: Science and study of abortion - breast cancer link

4. Lanfranchi A. The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link. Imago Hominis 2005;12(3): 228-236. Lanfranchi - physiology of abortion and breast cancer

5. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-M N, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer. Bri J Cancer 1999;80:609-13.

6. Hsieh C-c, Wuu J, Lambe M, Trichopoulos D, et al Delivery of premature newborns and maternal breast-cancer risk. Lancet 1999;353-1239.

7. Vatten LJ, et al. Pregnancy related protection against breast cancer depends on length of gestation. Br J Cancer 2002;87:289-90.

8. Innes K and Byers T. First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among young women. Int J Cancer 2004; 112:306-311.

9. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85.

10. Richard E. Behrman, Adrienne Stith Butler, Editors. Preterm birth: Causes, Consequences and Prevention. Committee on Understanding Premature Birth and Assuring Healthy Outcomes. Institute of Medicine. Appendix B, Table 5, p. 519. Available at: Institute of Medicine.

11. Carroll, P. The breast cancer epidemic: modeling and forecasts based on abortion and other risk factors." J Am Phys Surg Vol. 12, No. 3 (Fall 2007) 72-78. Available at:

12. Carroll P. The Breast Cancer Epidemic. The Actuary (November 2007) p. 30-31. Available at:

13. Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G. Collaborative Group of Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet 2004;363:1007-16.

14. Michels K, Xue Fei, Colditz G., Willett W. Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women. Arch Int Med 167:814-820.

15. Schlafly A. Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer. J Am Phys Surgeons 2005;10:11-14. Available at:

16. Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. Available at:

17. Lanfranchi A. The abortion-breast cancer link revisited. Ethics and Medics (November 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-4.

18. Furton E. The corruption of science by ideology. Ethics and Medics (Dec. 2004) Vol. 29, No. 12, p. 1-2.

19. Brind J. Induced abortion and breast cancer: A critical analysis of the report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. J Am Phys Surg 2007;12(2)38-39.

20. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at:

21. Cogliano V, Grosse Y, Baan R, Secretan B, El Ghissassi F. Carcinogenicity of combined oestrogen-progestagen contraceptives and menopausal treatment. Lancet Oncology 2005;6:552-553.

22. Press Release No. 167, "IARC Monographs Programme Finds Combined Estrogen-Progestogen Contraceptives (the "pill") and Menopausal Therapy Are Carcinogenic to Humans," World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer, July 29, 2005. See

23. Baggot, M. "Report Reveals Komen Gave Over $700 Thousand to Planned Parenthood in One Year / STOPP calls for end to Komen funding,", April 10, 2008. Available at:

##### The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer.

Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133 Hoffman Estates, IL 60195

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer This newsletter can be viewed online by clicking here:

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Pro life activism

I have entered a new phase in pro life activism. No marches, no internet petitions (those are just harvesting names, addresses and phone numbers anyway). I cannot depend on "organizations" so no more paying salaries of the numerous employees of these organizations.
What if, I think, each and every one of us, started OUR OWN activism with a focus of educating the public - we start with those around us.

For example, how many priests and clergy persons do we hear instructing people about abortion? Almost none.

This morning at church, one of the Jesuits preached on the Holy Family and how society was discouraging the family unit. Perfect time to bring up abortion because this is one of the most DESTRUCTIVE forces in our society today - not only of millions of unborn infants but also of the family unit.

I kept waiting for him to bring it up. He never did. So after church, I confronted him. He came up with a lot of excuses, everyone of which I countered (they were LAME excuses - the underlying reason was he didn't have the courage to talk about it). "How can people learn about abortion when the priests never preach about it?" and he answered with "well, here we are preaching to the choir" and I said "No we are not preaching to the choir because many people here do not know how important an issue abortion IS!" I reminded him that every minute, 9 babies die from abortion and he winced.

He ended up getting annoyed with me and saying that he "couldn't deal with that now because he was drained after doing Mass".

So was my activism a failure? No, not at all. The hopeful sign was that he WAS ANNOYED which means it will come back to mind later which hopefully is an opening for the Holy Spirit to speak to him. He DID admit that he THOUGHT of mentioning abortion (i.e. the Holy Spirit has already nudged him) but decided against it.

"I planted the seed," I told God after our encounter, "and now it's up to You to water that seed."

Every one of us CAN be activist and SHOULD be activist. We can no longer depend on the "orgs" to "take care of it" while we go on living our lives, attending our parties, buying our commodities and ignoring the need. Now it is we who need to go out to the public, starting with those in OUR lives, talking the pro life story. So that the "choice" to be offered by our administration will mean nothing because no one will choose it.

Now, it's our only chance to make the killing stop.