A Look at the Early Origins of Anti-Semitism and Its Effects Today

 

Anti-Semitism is perhaps the oldest forms of prejudice in the world.  At its heart is  the hatred of Jews and Judaism. Anti-Semitism includes a general belief that Jews are no long the "chosen people" as stated in the Bible due to their rejection of Jesus as the new "Messiah who would usher in a "Kingdom of God" on Earth. 

This role as "chosen" was annexed by a new sect known as "Christians" (from the Greek "Christos" for "anointed" similarly as a king or prophet who using olive oil). Based on their belief that Jesus was the anticipated messiah of prophecy, and through him, all believers were now the "chosen" or "elect" of God. They also believe that since Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah, they also have forfeited their divine "blessings" or "birthrights" including their right to the Holy Land.  That now belongs to Christians.

The Catholic Church, since the Council of Nicaea in the 4th Century, considers itself the sole legitimate arbiter of Christianity, has, historically, been at the core, of anti-Semitism down through the centuries. some even consider it the originator of anti-Semitism.  The Eastern Orthodox Church broke off in 1054 over a number of technical and doctrinal issues, but most notably the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, now known as the "Holy Father" or Pope and head of the "catholic" or universal church in what became known as "The Great Schism".   

It was here, starting in the 4th Century, the Vatican begins issuing official edicts or "Bulls" to enforced Church orthodoxy. In 1095, Pope Urban II called for the liberation of Jerusalem from the Muslims in what was  the first of eight major church sponsored crusades (in realty, there were dozens of crusades, though without the direct support of the Vatican).

 Pope Urban, in his directive, openly referred to Jews as "Christ killers" and "devils", and urged the crusaders to convert or murder any Jews they encountered along the way (the same applied to Muslims or non-conforming Christian sect which didn't recognize the sole authority of the Vatican as well). 

It's worth noting that even before reaching the Holy Land, those of the First Crusade (aka the "People's Crusade"), in keeping with the Pope's instructions, attacked Jewish communities in Germany in what became known as the "Rhineland Massacres of 1096". As many as 2000 Jewish men, women, and children were murdered; some were burned while others were hanged or simply run through by a pike, sword, or whatever was handy in the name of God.  

Throughout history, Jews were forced to move from one town to another, or from one country to the next; whoever would let them settle, at least for a little while. Special taxes were almost common place and restrictions were routinely placed on them. Most notably where they could live. In the east, most were limited to the "Pale of Settlement" which encompassed parts of modern Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. It was extremely poor and diseases were commonplace.

 In other places, be it in Poland, Germany, France, Spain, or England, they were herded into small, cramp sections of cities known as "ghettos". These areas were often known to be largely run down, rat infested, with little in the way of sanitation or access to fresh water. Residents had strict curfews. Failure to comply meant beatings caught by authorities. It was often much worse, especially if you were female.

Permission had to be requested to live outside of the ghetto (which could just as often be revoked). It often involved paying another tax or fee (bribe). Jews were often prohibited from owning land (though they may work for someone else who owned the land) just as some occupations were closed to them.

Have you ever wondered why Jews are associated to certain types of jobs such as pawn shops, rag collectors, "patchers" (individuals who patched or repaired pots and pans), or tailors?  That's because in most countries Jews weren't allowed to own property, particularly farmland. They could work on farms or even manage large estates, but never own them.

As a result, many moved into towns and cities where they could find other lines of work. Many would become tailors, and since they were often prohibited from joining trade guilds, were only permitted to fix broken items such as pans, pots, or furniture. In time, some became plumbers, roofers, painters, glaziers, and so forth. Ragmen collected bits of cloth and made them into towels for instance.

A few became loan brokers or ran pawnshops. Some became accountants and managed the money of wealthy...Christian...families, especially among the aristocrats. This is how the famous (or infamous) Rothschild financial house got their start. In a very few countries, some managed to become advisers of members of the elite, particularly in politics, and fewer yet ran for office (such as England's Benjamin Disraeli) and even became titled themselves. It wasn't uncommon, however, they had to leave their Jewish heritage behind in order to do so.

However, these were very few and far between. In fact, you could say they were rare to the point of hardly being believable even at the time itself. For the overwhelming majority, stories of the Rothschilds or Disraeli were the stuff of legends . For the rest, there was the constant and ever present danger of eviction on a moment's notice; forced to leave with just a few hours advance warning.

That meant leaving pretty much everything behind or selling (if you could) whatever you didn't need to virtually nothing since the only ones remaining were your Christian "neighbors". For those who were even only slightly better off, there was always the jealousy and rumors. Most just scavenged whatever remained of your existence.   However, perhaps what was worse were the pogroms.

Pogroms were little more than orchestrated violent riots directed at the closest Jewish settlement (commonly referred to as a "shtetl" in Eastern Europe). Generally these protests were result of some trumped up claim that a Jew from the shtetl stole of goose or seen after curfew. In reality, pogroms were just an excuse to intimidate Jews (such were the way Jews were thought of).

Worse is when a local child went missing or was found dead (usually accidently drowning, etc). Jews were often seen as the culprit. In the case of missing children, they were accused of "blood libel", which was perhaps one of the most heinous of charges which could be brought against a Jew. Essentially, it accused the individual of murdering the child and then using their blood (sometimes their bones) in the making of matzo or unleavened bread, to been eaten of the Jewish Sabbath (or especially on one of the special Holy days like Passover).   

Homes and businesses were burnt down, and if caught out, Jews were often beaten, robbed, raped, or in worse cases, murdered.  There was little that the local could do about it. Reporting the crime to authorities was useless. The pogroms were often ordered by the local lord who also happened employed some of the Jews since they couldn't own land. 

Thus they risked losing their income, home, a small tract to grow their own meger crops, all of which they desperately needed by reporting the crime! Church authorities were also often involved with these pogroms and it was frowned on to even speak with the priests and forbidden to enter a church. Then there were the inquisitions.  

Beginning in 1194, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith was founded for the sole purpose of flushing out what the Church defined as "heretics" through investigations and trials. In reality, they sought out and eliminated those perceived to be enemies or threats to the Church. Like the Mafia of old, they were the "enforcers". They inspired terror wherever they went. They relied on rumors, lies, circumstantial evidence, hearsay, and even considered moles and birthmarks to be direct evidence!

They were often summoned at the request of a monarch or powerful lord who used the act of calling for an inquisition as their own personal "proof" of devotion to the God and the Church. Many used the inquisition as a means to rid themselves of potential threats to their authority, thus preventing or reducing the chances of being assassinated, a coup, and ensuring loyal.

They were also handy for getting rid of troubling groups ranging from gypsies, various religious sects such as the Cathars and Waldensians, Hussites, or emerging Protestants following the Reformation. During the subjugation of South America by the Conquistadors in the 1500's, the Church used inquisitions against the native populations (which later expanded into what's now southwest United States).

Punishment by the Church appointed court could consist of anything from simple confession of your "guilt" and the utterances of a few prayers ("donating" a few coins didn't hurt either) all the way up to being burned at the stake (the Church often took possession of whatever you owned to boot).

Beatings and other tortures such as waterboarding or the rack were commonly employed as was "dunking" in vats of boiling or freezing water to force your confession (interspersed with prayers and promises of "divine forgiveness"). Individuals could be stripped naked and intimately "inspected" for signs of demonic or Satanic possession (including females and children) by these allegedly chaste priests. Conviction was often viewed as random, but assuredly, the "guilty" would be found out.

Technically, the torture couldn't endanger the life of the accused. It could not result in the permanent injury or loss of one's arms or legs (including hands, feet, nose, eyes, ears, or tongue) although nothing were off limits when it came the application of torture itself. In addition, once used the torture may not be reapplied, therefore you got one trip to the torture...err...I mean confession chamber. But, how does this apply to Jews and Anti-Semitism?

While officially the Inquisition could not be applied to Jews or Muslims based on previously issued edicts, the use of pogroms were seen as a way to circumvent the edicts. Violent attacks were often conducted against Jewish and Moorish (Muslim) communities. However, since Christians were prohibited from attacking other Christians, if these individuals would convert, they could be spared the beatings, lootings, pogroms, and special taxes. They could be welcomed into the trade guilds and into society in general. The incentives were enormous. All you had to sacrifice was your identity. 

As a result, thousands of Jews and Moors converted and became known as "Conversos" or "Marranos". However, many would later convert back to their original faith. This is where the Inquisition came in. One of the goals of the Holy Office of the Inquisitor was to ensure to loyalty of the masses to the Church and the "sincerity of their faith". 

Thus, a Converso who reverted to their prior faith was seen as "endangering their soul" which, of course, was of primary concern of the Vatican. Therefore, the Inquisitor would round up all the lapsed Catholics they could find and remind them of their commitment. Think of it as a revival with whips and thumbscrews!

In 1478, King Ferdinand II of Aragon and the Castilian Queen Isabella of Christopher Columbus fame ordered up one of these "revivals" in what became known as the Spanish Inquisition (as an aside, Columbus is believed to have been a Converso). What was different from other Inquisitions was that the royal couple were deemed "most Catholic" enough by the Holy See to oversee the Inquisition independently of Vatican, although it's general operation was still staffed by appointed clergy. 

All Jews who had not converted by 1492 were ordered out of the country (Columbus went a step further, he left the continent). All Moors were ordered out by 1501. Anyone who remained would be subject to continued used of the Inquisition. All possessions were to remain.  Not to be outdone, King Philip of Spain applied the same standards to his possessions in the New World starting in 1569.

Portugal got into the act in 1520 with the appointment of a "Grand Inquisitor" by Pope Paul III. Not only were and Moors, it extended to "witchcraft" or form divination (including playing cards) and bigamy. The purpose was to exert political, social, economic, and religious control over the population.

One of the most notorious Inquisitions was requested by the Jesuit priest Francis Xavier in 1540 which became known as the "Goa Inquisition", which was applied almost exclusively on "New Christians" (Jews who had been forcibly converted) reverted back to Judaism, however, it also included Muslims and even Hindus!

There's no existing data telling us how many individuals died during the pogroms or Inquisitions nor the financial loss which resulted. No doubt the loss of lives must have been in the tens of thousands at the very least. We have a general idea that when it came to the various Gnostic Christian sects or other that the Church referred to as "heretical" (such as the Cathars, Arianians, Merovingians, Pelagianism, or orders like the Knights Templars) suffered in the millions.

In terms of financial loss, one can only guess but it was likely in the billions by today's standards, not mentioning the historical artifacts which have been destroyed or hidden away in the caverns of the Vatican's archives. However, to the Holy Office of the Inquisition, no price was too high to maintain Catholic orthodoxy.

Fascist Spain, Italy, and Argentina, with its close Catholic traditions, continued to tie itself to this absolutist orthodoxy while they reigned. Nazi Germany tried to replace it with more vulgar version harkening back to a mix of mythical past and pseudoscience with Hitler as the "New Martin Luther". Communism equally sought to replace organized religion with a purely secular faith where ideology of Marxism, the party and the state served as the three prong godhead. Politicalized Christianly and Critical Race Theory each offer the same possibility today as does radical Islam does.   

Faith, in the form of spiritualism, has been with this from the beginning whereas religion with its dogma, pageantry, and sacrifices sprung in unison with government as means of awe and control. One temporal and the other eternal. We must be aware of all things created by Man for no matter how noble their intent, they inherently contain at least a kernel of vanity and greed, which given time, will block out all light of freedom and poison the soil of enlightenment.

 

   If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 Anti-Semitism in America is Nothing New. Don't Deny Jewish Culture or Culture by Calling Us "White"

Anti-Semitism

Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus

 

List of Crusades

Inquisition

Religion in Nazi Germany

Communism and Religion

Marxism and Religion

 

 

 

 

 

Pulling the Trigger: Abortion Post Roe v. Wade

On Friday, June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision which may ultimately prove to be as decisive as the first volley fired at Concord and Lexington in April 1775 or the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861. The court, by a five to four decision along ideological lines, voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has stood since 1973, giving women the right to end a unwanted pregnancy.  

A majority of Americans, 54% to 28%, regarded the court's decision a mistake equivalent to Citizens United and further demonstrated the folly of lifetime appointments and the disconnect it creates with the American People, technology and society.  In another poll, 70% of the respondents said that a woman's decision to get an abortion should be private matter between a woman and her doctor.

The nearly 50 year old decision was based on the 14th amendment (and to a lesser extension, the 9th amendment which serves as a "catch all" amendment) and was based on the issue of privacy.  These same laws were used to guarantee the rights and citizenship of former slaves because of its "citizenship clause". It  is also cited to justify citizenship for so-called "anchor babies". That is, children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.   

The 14th amendment was used in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education which dealt with racial discrimination under its Equal Protection Clause, and in 2015, it was used to strike down state laws opposing mixed race and same sex marriages under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, each state regulated their own abortion laws. Some states were fairly liberal, essentially allowing abortions on demand, while others restricted it to cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother was endangered or if something catastrophic was wrong with the child which would affect its quality of life, while some prohibited it altogether.

In states where there were restrictions, it also meant that those with the financial wherewithal could afford to obtain a relatively safe abortion while the working class and poor were often forced to seek out "back alley" procedures which were typically unsafe and unsanitary (in some cases, women crossed or were smuggled into Mexico for the illegal procedure) and provided nothing for pain.. 

It wasn't unusual  for a woman to be physically injured during the procedure, leaving them with internal injuries, infections like sepsis, sterile, or dead.

Some women purchased certain drugs, which caused violent cramps, bleeding, and vomiting, from questionable sources to end their unwanted pregnancies. These drugs could be just as deadly.  Roe v. Wade was intended to end these procedures and provide safe alternatives.

The decision ending Roe v. Wade, will again put the decision back into the hands of the states in what's known as "trigger laws".  In 26 states (including Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Missouri ), these laws will take effect immediately, while in others there is a waiting period ranging from five to 30 days. In a few states, the laws must be reviewed and amended if necessary before taking effect (it's worth nothing that in some states, their abortion laws date back to the early 1930's).

The ending of Roe v. Wade marks another serious break in the United States, which is already deeply divided. Approximately 2/3 of Americans supported Roe v. Wade. 58% of those polled said they hoped their state would enact more progressive abortion laws, while 51% wanted their state to become a "safe haven" for women seeking an abortion.

Thus, the Supreme Court has now joined Congress and the Presidency in disregarding the opinions of the majority of the American People. Is it any wonder that the Supreme Court has a 25% approval rating?  As an aside, the approval rating of Congress is a dismal 20% (it was a record low of 18% in May 2022) while Biden's is currently just 38% (VP Kamala Harris has a rating of 35%).  

As a result of the Roe decision, the approval rating for the Supreme Court dropped from 40% to 25% among Independents (America's largest political bloc), from 30% to 13% among Democrats, and yet it actually rose among Republicans from 37% to 39%.

It's worth nothing that the court's decision, which many consider to be a women's issue, came down primarily along ideological lines with the five conservative justices (four men and one woman) voting to undo Roe v. Wade while the four liberal justices, which  included two women, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissenting ( it's worth noting that Justice Clarence Thomas is considered the most conservative while Sonia Sotomayor is the most liberal).  

In addition, it should be pointed out that Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed by President Clinton, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were appointed by President Obama.  Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the court's majority opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas were appointed by President George H. W. Bush. Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush. President Trump appointed three— Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Many conservatives, notably among the Far Right, considered this to be a moral, and therefore, a religious issue more so than a ideological one. Their argument was that abortion, regardless of the circumstances to be morally wrong, and thus in conflict with their religious beliefs.

There may be a grain of truth in this. The court consists of six Catholics, one Protestant, and two Jews. The lone Protestant, Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, was raised Catholic but converted to "Catholic-lite" Episcopalianism. Justice Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent and the most liberal justice, has said that she considers herself more of a "cultural Catholic" than practicing Catholic. 

Nevertheless, the Vatican has stated that any politician or judge who supported abortion, which is banned by Canon Law, could be refused communion or possibly even excommunication. Apparently five of the Catholic justices weren't taking any chances.

The Left, on the other hand, saw Roe v. Wade more of a economic and social issue which provided women with the control over their body and by being a federal law, made abortion legal, affordable, and providing a degree of safety as well as privacy.

Of course, some states, with considerable pressure from conservative Right to Life groups, attempted to hamstring the federal law by requiring a waiting period, mandatory pre-procedure counseling, and viewing images of the fetus before being allowed to proceed with the procedure.  

So, what does this all mean? Since 1973, there has been an estimated 63 million abortions performed in the United States. The National Right to Life Committee has claimed that for every 1000 live births, there are 193 abortions. Yet contrary to popular opinion, most of these were not "on demand" forms of birth control as some have alleged.

The renown Guttmacher Institute conducted an intensive study of why women had abortions found that 74% said having a child at that time would interfere with their work, education, or ability to take of a dependent. 73% cited economic reasons while 48% didn't want to try to raise a child on their own. 4 in 10 said they were done with their childbearing and didn't want any more children while 1/3 admitted that they weren't emotionally ready to have child yet.

With Roe v. Wade becoming law in 1973, the number of adoptions available significantly decreased, especially among middle and upper class white women. Adoptions rose from 91,000 in 1957 to 175,000 by 1970. But by 1975, two years after Roe v. Wade, they had dropped to 130,000 and continued to drop.

In the 1970's, 9% of single women surrendered their children to adoption. By the 1980's, that figure had dropped to 2% of single females giving their children up for adoption, which further dropped to 1% by the 1990's and on.  It's also worth noting that most of the women interviewed stated that it was less emotionally stressful to have an abortion than it was giving up their child for adoption.

Our America of 2022 is not the same America of the 1970's. There will likely be more states willing to allow abortions, at least at some level, than there was the years prior to Roe v. Wade. There are more conception options available, such as the "morning after pill", not to mention dozens of birth control devices and reversible procedures available. If you are going to be sexual active, then you need to take responsibility for your actions and use some form of protection. There's now no longer any excuse not to.

However, it's not really about birth control or even abortions is it? It comes down to who has the final say over one's own body---the individual? The state? Or is it some group attempting to impose its religious and moral values onto others? That, in my opinion, is what the argument has really been about all along.

With the undoing of Roe v. Wade, should there now be an attempt to expand this reversal of privacy and individual choice to include birth control (as some religious groups have promised to do since they believe all forms of birth control are "immoral"), or attempt to apply it to interracial or same sex partnerships and marriages (which some oppose for the same reason), I think you will see the final tear in this nation's fabric.

It's ironic that at the same time, we are seeing efforts by the Left to prohibit or further restrict gun ownership, which also comes down to a matter of privacy, personal choice, and self-protection under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Somehow I can't see conservatives standing by and allowing it to happen, and yet isn't turnabout seen as "fair play"?    

I struggle with abortion for several reasons, least of all depriving a healthy infant the wonders of life (none of those reasons involve religion by the way).  However, I believe there are exceptions, such as rape, incest, the endangerment of the mother's life, or something catastrophic which would seriously impair the child's quality of life. I can't condone late term abortions either unless, again, the mother's life is endangered or the child's quality of life is impacted.

But, to be clear,  I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to tell anyone, especially a stranger whose circumstances I know nothing about or someone of the opposite gender, what they can or can't do with their body, regardless of whether I agree or not (otherwise, it follows that women should be able to require men to get vasectomies for instance). I will, of course, be more than happy to give my opinion should they ask!

 Lastly, I don't believe any individual, group, or religious institution has the right to impose their religious beliefs or ideas of morality onto anyone else, particularly when they are neither married or have children. That's no different than what the Taliban has done in Afghanistan. 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

 What does overturning Roe v. Wade mean? Supreme Court decision's implications

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

The Religion of the Supreme Court Justices

The political leanings  of the Supreme Court justices

Trigger Law

Guttmacher Institute: Reasons U.S. women have abortions

Why So Many Women Chose Abortions Over Adoptions

New poll finds Americans oppose striking down Roe v. Wade bya 2 to 1 margin

The New England Journal of Medicine: Perilous Politics: Morbidityand Mortality in the Pre-Roe Era

Joe Biden's Big Adventure: The G20 Climate Summit and Meeting with Pope Francis

It seems we've entered a new stage of insanity as we go deeper and deeper into this dystopian rabbit hole. Take for example climate change.  We've been berated by Democrats and those on the Left for at least a decade about the dangers of global warming (rebranded under the name of "climate change").

 So, why is it that Biden goes to Scotland for an all important convocation of world leaders to discuss about climate change, and what do we see? Biden snoozing for all the world to see! True, he made a speech on climate change at the COP26 meeting which was far from inspiring as well as the usual glad handing and picture posing.

 Much of what he said has been said before, and as usual, ignored afterwards. We all know that nothing, and I mean nothing, will happen, at least in the United States, without the support of the corporate giants who just so happen to own the government. Besides, unless the world's worse polluter, China, isn't a 100% onboard and willing to put its yen where its mouth is, nothing anyone else does will amount to a hill of beans. 75% of all its lakes and waterways are unfit for human usage and wearing masks is common in the cities because of pollution which is six times world health standards.

China has the economic clout to completely derail any realistic chance to curtail climate change unless the West and other industrialized nations acquiesce to what it wants when it wants it. Key to its potential list of demands for any actual compliance to "clean up its act" would be cutting support of Taiwan and quite possibly "looking away" should Beijing decide to "incorporate" the island nation back into the fold.  Imagine how that would affect America's already damaged prestige abroad.

China, while not quite a global superpower on par with the U.S. is still too powerful economically and militarily to be bullied or intimidated by anyone, including the U.S.. At the same time, attempts by U.S. "chicken hawks" to rekindle the Cold War with Russia through sanitations, and propaganda, is only driving Russia closer to the China. Given Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas, is that really a good idea? Besides, Russia is potentially the better friend where our dealings with China is concerned. 

Along with abandoning Taiwan, accepting the South China Sea as de facto Chinese territorial waters would be another demand.  I wouldn't be surprised if China also demanded concessions from the other power in the region. Both nations has engaged in posturing and the occasional gunplay along their common border for several years.

China has also become closer pals with India's archenemy to the west, Pakistan.  This present an obvious potential double edge sword given Pakistan's deep Islamic roots and connections to terrorist groups and China's troubles with its Uyghur Muslim population in the Xinjiang Province and "rumors" of some Uyghurs being imprisoned in concentration camps. The same can be said of China's and Iran's strategic arrangement, which may be based more on the idea of common enemy, the U.S., than anything substantial.

China's fishing fleet (with naval support) has also been inserting itself in India's traditional sovereign waters. It's also affected other nations dependant on sea harvests to feed their people and bolster their economies. The worst part of the Chinese intrusion is that they typically use huge shipping vessels which can scoop up more in a single catch than local fisherman catch in a year.  

The result is a depleted environment with fewer profitable catches, smaller fish, lobsters, and so forth. If this is allowed to continue, you'll see the economies of nations like Japan, India, both Koreas, the Philippines, and Indonesia deeply affected thanks to higher prices for less available fish---the staple of their diets, and the grim possible of rising poverty and even starvation if not curtailed. 

As an aside, China has also been busy buying up options on natural mineral resources throughout the world, most notably Africa and Latin America along with the rights to fresh water sources (not unlike a few American corporations). It's worth noting that they pay little concern to the environmental damage they cause. With what all that is at stake, you'd think Biden would want to take his naps elsewhere or have someone more "awake" sitting in on these discussions.

Another (we'll call it "interesting") episode took place just before the climate conference, and that was Biden's meeting with Pope Francis in Vatican City, ahead of the G20 Summit and his meeting with France's Macron. Biden, as most people know, is a devout Catholic which makes his stand, as a Democrat, on abortion rather precarious. Some conservative bishops have been calling for Biden's exclusion from communion because of it.

The meeting, Biden's fourth with Pope Francis, but first as President, started off with his usual tired old quip ("Hi, I'm Jill's husband"). Biden presented the Pope with a gold coin depicting the Seal of the United States on one side and outline of Delaware on the other and "the 261st unit" his son had served with (the 261st is a tactical signal brigade which provides command and control to other units).

Officially, the meeting had been scheduled to discuss  a variety of issues ranging from climate change, poverty, the COVID pandemic, and global economics. However rumors persisted that Biden's real agenda concerned whether or not he would receive communion. The Vatican has declined to comment.

It's should be pointed out that the 75 minute meeting (unusually long by Vatican standards) was to be televised live but for some reason, was shut down about halfway in without any comment beyond the Pope and Biden wanting to discuss issues "informally"...but that's not all that allegedly happened.

According to a tweet from Amy Tarkanian, the former Nevada Republican State Chairwoman and wife of Republican Attorney Danny Tarkanian, the meeting with the Pope ran usually long because...how to say this politely...President Biden had a "bathroom incident" which had to be dealt with first.  Ms. Tarkanian even managed to post a picture to backup her tweet. Almost instantaneously, the tweet and the picture went viral. Not unexpectedly, comments (and snarky remarks) poured in.

Here's the problem as I see it. While I'm not a big fan of "Slow Joe" by a long shot, we need to remember that Biden is an "well worn" 78 year old with a lot of health issues (he'll be 79 on November 20th). Never mind the rumors and allegations of dementia or other cognitive illnesses, Biden has suffered two brain aneurysms (one actually ruptured) and developed deep vein thrombosis along with pulmonary embolism.  Brain aneurysms can lead to strokes and be possibly fatal if left untreated. 

In watching Biden's speeches from the "get-go" of his presidential campaign, it appears obvious to just about everyone (even anti-Trumpsters) that something is wrong with Ole Joe. It appeared he was being coached and fed answers practically every step of the way in his speeches (especially during debates where wires from an ear piece could be seen under his jacket and Biden doesn't wear a hearing aid).

When Biden speaks without a teleprompter, his remarks are often muddled and occasionally incoherent, but then again, Obama's speeches weren't worth a damn without a teleprompter either.  It's been reported that he requires questions be submitted in advanced when being interviewed, and he's always got someone there off camera coaching him. Often he doesn't even take unscripted questions from reporters; he just makes his comments and walks off stage. Clearly there's something very wrong.

This leads to another observation. Without Ms. Tarkanian's tweet and picture I would have chalked this is up just another partisan low, albeit an especially cruel one. But there was a picture, which if real, just makes me feel sorry for Biden (the picture I saw looks like it was taken on a golf course and you can't see the man's face, which seems phony to me). It's also a sad commentary on society in just how fast everyone was to make fun of an obviously sick old man...President or not. Democrat or not.

It's obvious, or should be, to everyone that Joe Biden should never ever had been made president. Yes, he was qualified (more so than Obama or Trump). However, he also had a questionable past which included admissions of plagiarism, wanting to cut Social Security (which he called an "entitlement"), support for the Hyde Amendment (which prohibited using Medicaid dollars for abortions under any circumstances), support of NAFTA and claims of being a "fair trader" (anti-union), and so on.

Face it, if anybody, and I mean anybody but Trump was the Republican nominee, Joe Biden wouldn't be president right now, such was the visceral hatred for the man. Given the pandemic, the vaccination revolt and resulting labor shortage plus China's growing clout and aggressiveness, signs of inflation,rising prices, the Afghanistan debacle, and America's deep (and largely manufactured) divisions, Biden is the wrong man at the wrong time in American and world history.

Nevertheless, Trump was the GOP nominee just when America is more divided than at any time since just before the Civil War. China is on the move, as are many of the terrorist organizations who perceive a weak America. Several intelligent agencies now predict a major terrorist event in the U.S. within the next five to ten years. Biden also just recently made another gaff when he "apologized" to world leaders for the Trump Presidency and its policies.

Folks, in case you didn't know, there are several things the former and sitting presidents have informally agreed to do and not to do. One of those "rules" is to never openly criticized another president or their policies, but he did. In doing so, Biden in affect disavowed the Trump Presidency. If you want to bring the country together, that's not how you do it. All Biden succeeded in doing was throwing gasoline on a raging bonfire.

It's worth noting that there was no hue and cry from the Republican Establishment or the corporate controlled media since all sides see the Trump Presidency as nothing more than an aberration; a folly created by the unwashed and uncouth masses who didn't know any better than not to play the game---vote for a pre-vetted cardboard cutout on the Right, ignored the pre-vetted rich "socialist" insider on the Left, and finally allow Hillary her long overdue coronation (and stay tuned for one "Benghazi" of a presidency!). But that's not how it happened.

What happened was that the Establishment was challenged, albeit a bit haphazardly, by a non-politician. This was more than the usual campaign rhetoric and meaningless promises we've all come to expect. This was real. Despite every underhanded and dirty trick they could conjure, "The Donald" remained. But as the reelection loomed, Nancy Pelosi herself said that Trump "won't be allowed to be president again". Allowed? Isn't that our decision? As it turned out, apparently not.

Joe Biden was elected (or "selected" if you prefer) as a his reward for years of dedicated service to the party and the ruling Oligarchy. However, more and more it appears that he's little more than a placeholder. If you agree with that premise, you by default would agree that the American President has become hollow; a figurehead or puppet.

However, that doesn't mean the presidency itself has become equally hollow. It remains the "Imperial Presidency" except it's those behind the scenes, by whatever name you care to give it--- the "secret cabal", "deep state", the "shadow government", the "Corporate State", or simply the Oligarchy who remain firmly in charge of all the apparatuses of real power in and out of government. 

It's up to us regardless of party, race, gender, orientation, religion, or any other artificial divisions to restore the government of our Founders. But, rest assured, time is quickly running out and our enemies aren't waiting around to see what we decide. So, I ask you, what will you do? 

 

How China's Expanding Fishing Fleet Is Depleting the World's Oceans

China and Iran: Economic, Political, and Military Relations

Why 'Poopy Pants Biden' Memes Trended After POTUS Meeting with Pope Francis

A Closer Look At Joe Biden's Health

 

 

 

Does 'la Papa' really know best?

Pope Francis flew some 7000 miles to the United States to tell Americans to "welcome strangers in our midst", a reference to immigration---particularly illegal immigration--into this country. He then asked Americans to reject a "mindset of hostility". The Pontiff went on to say "...on this continent ... thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities," the Pope said. "Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal."

While I respect for Pope Francis for his openness and humility, which has been so often been lacking in past Popes and other religious leaders, I'm afraid he was barking up the wrong tree. America is literally a land of immigrants. Practically every population, language, and religion on the planet is represented by this country. America takes in more immigrants than any other nation and gives more in aid than any other nation. Although born in Argentina, Pope Francis seems woefully ignorant of our immigrant situation, not to mention Europe's. At present, the US has some 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the states (some estimates push that number as high as 20 million) with thousands crossing the border daily.

America has been a highly welcoming country. 38.5 million foreign born immigrants have come to this country just since 2009. Roughly half are women. Two-thirds of those have become naturalized citizens. 46.9% are Latino or Hispanic, 23.9% are Asian, while 8.2% are black or African. The remaining 17.5 are either of another race (mainly white) or are of a mixed race. So the Pope is really off base telling America to "open its arms". What the aforementioned statistics should loudly say is that America is perhaps the most accepting nation in the world. Nevertheless, we are also a nation of laws. We have borders just as every other nation does, including Vatican City. All we ask is that if you want to come here, that you do it legally. Is that so difficult to understand? Yes, America does accept immigrants from other countries who are fleeing their homeland because of some natural or manmade crisis such as war, famine, genocide or some form of violent persecution---just under 75,000 came in 2009 alone. Most of these refugees came from Cuba, the Congo, Iran, Burundi, Vietnam, and Somalia. However, few of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now living in this country fit that criteria.

As for the Vatican City, a nation-state and seat of the Catholic Church, however, does not accept illegal immigrants or refugees. Those wishing to legally immigrant into Vatican City must first apply for special permission for residency. Most choose to settle outside the city walls (yes, I said "city walls". Vatican City is surrounded by a tall reinforced stone wall), in Rome. Although the official position of the Vatican has been that all immigrants has specific migratory rights (since humans are basically a nomadic species), the size and limited resources of Vatican City (approximately 108 square miles with roughly 10 people per square mile) make open acceptance impossible. So, if viewed more as a city-state than a nation-state, Vatican City would be comparable to many middle to small cities around the world. Yet, many of these cities have been forced into accepting immigrants and refugees. So, what's the difference?

I think the difference is multifold. First, many of the middle and small sized towns are not solely self-reliant. They get money and resources from the state and/or nation. Many are surrounded by farmland and ample useable water, plus they have an adequate infrastructure with the potential to expand. Ok, what about Vatican City? Though it's size is finite, it has more than ample financial resources thanks to its vast real estate holdings, national treasures (which are, frankly, simply priceless), and the outstanding revenue stream derived from the thousands of parishes throughout the world. If the Vatican was viewed as a corporation (which in many respects it is), it would be among the world's richest (the Vatican's bank, for instance, is estimated to have some 20 billion dollars in gold reserves on deposit just in the US alone. In addition, it receives some $850 million just from the 85 million Catholics living in North America---and there are some 2.1 billion Catholics in the world!). Another estimate claims that the Vatican's bank has some $8 billion in assets not including its various real estate holdings. Being located within Rome, there is adequate room to settle immigrants and refugees, with the permission of Rome's mayor and the Italian government, a good infrastructure as well as sufficient water and food.

So, my point here is that, as a head of state, Pope Francis could easily address the issue of immigration, either within Vatican City itself or some place within Italy or through its various global real estate holdings and, of course, where its political and religious influence allows. It would make far more sense for the Vatican to use its considerable wealth and power to promote resolutions that would allow refugees to remain or return to their home countries. As an aside, approximately 2/3 of Hispanics and Latinos are Catholic, so it obviously behooves the Pontiff to promote more immigration---legal and illegal--into the predominately Protestant United States. Just saying.

Finally, while the Pontiff, speaking at the United Nations, called on the US and other countries to be more "accepting" of immigrants, there was nothing in any of his speeches which called on immigrants to be more accepting of their chosen hosts. Nothing was mentioned about learning and using the host nation's primary language, of respecting or even adopting any of the host country's traditions and customs (not to mention other religions). Many seem to becoming only for what government handouts they get with no intent on integration. He made no appeal to the immigrants to leave behind old tribal, racial, religious or ethnic hatreds and start anew. There has already been several outbreaks of violence between various groups of immigrants in Europe. He said nothing about the newcomers cooperating with officials, avoiding violence or blending in with society. In fact, it seems that the Pope was pushing a one sided agenda; that the host nations must cower to the immigrants. That, in my opinion, was a critical mistake since while most of the nations have in fact been generous in their welcoming, it has been the immigrants who have proven to be disruptive, violent, and demanding that their host country forego their traditions---cultural and religious---in favor of theirs, and that my friends is wrong. It only sows the seeds for mistrust, prejudice, and violence. So, when handing out policy advice, how about a little less of "do as I say not as I do" ok?

Pope's immigration message draws praise, criticism from advocacy groups
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/24/pope-immigration-congress-speech-advocates-tussle/72699836/


Why Immigration is Different for Pope Francis
http://time.com/4046634/pope-francis-us-visit-immigration/


Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states-1


Pro-Immigration Pope Lives in Vatican City With The Strictest Immigration Policies in the World
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/pro-immigration-pope-lives-in-vatican-city-with-strictest-immigration-policies-in-the-world-video/


How rich is the Vatican?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-rich-vatican-so-wealthy-it-can-stumble-across-millions-euros-just-tucked-away-1478219

Irish 'Ayes' are Smiling

Well, Pope Francis is in a dither. It seems that Ireland has just recently become the very first country to officially recognize gay marriage following a national referendum on May 23rd. Ireland has been staunch Catholic since the early 400's. Just 100 years ago, Ireland didn't permit divorces and still remains opposed to abortions. Nevertheless, it appears that pink is the new green on the Emerald Isle. To be honest, with all the commotion going on in the world, like wars, depleting food sources, energy shortages, troubles in the Middle East, terrorism, climate change, decreasing supplies of fresh water, an unsustainable population rate, jobs, pollution, America's loss of its democratic republic to a increasingly fascist oligarchy, a failing global economic system, I wouldn't think gay marriage in Ireland would even be on the radar for the Vatican.

So, how many people does this ruling affect? Well, apparently not that many. Approximately 4% of Ireland's population claim to be either gay or bisexual, though some surveys hint that the real number could be closer to 10% since many have refused to answer the question. What may have added to the Pope's ire is the report that church attendance dropped, not just in Ireland, but throughout all Europe and the Middle East (church attendance in Europe is down approximately 40% over recent years). Of course attendance in the Middle East could be partially attributed to the recent persecutions of Christians in general and the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church in particular throughout not just the Middle East, but in Africa and parts of Asia or anywhere else where there is a rising tide of radical Islam. An estimated 24,000 Christians have been murdered so far by ISIS while another 700,000+ Christians are in flux as they try to avoid ISIS and other extremist Moslems; Moslems, by the way, who have declared Christianity to be "enemy #1" while dozens, if not more, churches are destroyed along with ancient historical sites. It seems that only the Catholics in Latin America has been immune from persecution...so far. On the "bright side", President Obama is poised to bring thousands of Moslems to the United States rather than these Christians who are under threat and facing a very real holocaust of their own.

Here in the States, gay marriage has been largely unpopular, especially in more conservative States, but there are signs that resistance against gay marriage is weakening. 37 States have legislation upholding gay marriage while 13 States have legislation prohibiting it. Ultimately, it will come down to the Supreme Court, which brings me to the heart of this article. The more conservative Christian churches and seminaries openly condemn gay marriage while the moderate and liberal religious groups have been mostly accepting if not at least more open minded. Among Millennials, who are replacing the Babyboomers as the largest voting bloc, gay, bisexual, or transgendered lives are a non-issue. That's something that the conservatives will have to get past if they are to remain a viable political power, at least on the national level. Otherwise, Millennials will leave the conservatives in the dust. In fact, Millennials are already forming their own socio-political identities which certainly leans Left and preferably non-partisan. Survey after survey show these Millennials to favor democratic-socialism while also reflecting a streak of libertarianism. In voting patterns so far, Millennials have tended to vote Democrat and Independent most often with Republicans coming in a distant third. It's not that they have any specific loyalty to the Democratic Party or Indies, it's just that they don't like the GOP's vision of America, which brings us back to the topic gay marriage. Unless the Republican Party (as well as other conservative parties and political groups) make a course change, they will---to quote Trotsky---wind up in the "dustbin of history". No one says they have to like it, but they do have to accept the reality of it. To borrow another quote, this time from the "Iron Chancellor", Otto von Bismarck, "politics is the art of the possible".

As for my personal opinion (and my apologies in advance if I step on any toes), I can't say that I have a problem with those who are gay, bisexual, or transgendered. I've always been heterosexual (so sue me). I've always thought that marriage was a relationship between a man and woman. It has been the backbone of civilization through the ages and it served a practical function. Civilizations such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Sumerians accepted a form of bisexual relationships, though the opposing sex arrangement was considered the most acceptable. This was also true of the Greeks who never sanctioned any sort of same gender marriage. In Roman, it was much the same, though not overt publically and was generally frowned upon.

When I ran for Metro Council in 2001, I was endorsed by the Fairness Campaign (the Fairness Campaign was a predominately LGBT organization which was promoting the Fairness Ordinance prohibiting anyone regardless of their sexual orientation--straight, gay, bisexual, or transgendered---from be discriminated against). I was one of the very few who answered the questionnaire and was willing to sit for an interview. I was quite truthful in both the questionnaire and interview. Briefly, I stated that I didn't believe in discrimination of any sort based on their sexual preferences or self-identity, race, religion, gender, or place of origin. As a result, I also received the endorsement of several other LGBT organizations such as The Letter. My opponent, however, was strictly against it though admitted in a interview that he hadn't read the proposed ordinance. Individuals were encouraged to call, email, and send threatening messages because of my acceptance of the endorsements. I recall trying to educate them, but it was mostly hopeless. Nevertheless, the ordinance passed by a substantial margin.

When I ran for the State Legislature in 2004, I received a similar questionnaire from most of the same groups. I again answered their questions exactly the same way, though some withheld their endorsement this time because of their personal hang-ups with the political party and not me. There were a few in the party leadership who disapproved but that was their problem not mine. Besides, I've always been secure enough with my own masculinity not to feel threatened. All the same, I was supported by the nation's top conservative gay, bisexual and transgendered political organization. As I explained at the time, I am strictly heterosexual and I believe marriage as such should be a union between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, I would not support any legislation which promoted discrimination in any form. To be clear (and here is my obligatory disclaimer statement), I've had numerous gay, bisexual, and lesbian friends; still do. I lived in San Francisco during the 1970's, at a time when individuals were just coming "out of the closet". I even stood on the sidewalk to watch the second "Gay Pride" parade (actually I happened to be at a Kosher deli eating a sandwich and walked out to see what the hubbub was all about, but that muddles the point). I even knew Harvey Milk, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who was assassinated along with Mayor Moscone in 1978. Milk was the first openly gay politician ever to be elected in California. While in the service, I discretely "protected" a couple of Navy corpsmen who were in a same-sex relationship. Had it come out that I knew and didn't report it, I would have been in some pretty serious trouble too. Still, had they been found out, they would have literally been booted out with a General Discharge within 24 hours. These individuals were good corpsmen with exemplary military records and I wasn't going to let that happen. I've also worked with numerous individuals who weren't straight over the years. As with every group, there are always some who are nice and some who are jerks. I have no issues with that since I treat people the way I way I want to be treated. I also treat them as they treat me. As an aside, should I should ever run for office again, I hope I can count on their support
.

While I don't personally agree with non-straight relationships, I still must acknowledge that none of these relationships are, frankly, any of my business. I have enough problems living my life without managing someone else's. Each us exist in this time and space for a some reason which may or may not be entirely clear to us. We can say it's all a part of "God's plan" or part of some deity's grand design. We can attribute it to some random fluke in the universe, or simply claim that our existence is nothing more than a meaningless flip of the comic coin. Nevertheless, we are here for now. In our fleeting moment of existance, we are free to choose what sort of life we want to live within certain defined parameters set by society. Thus, we are free to choose to be with those who bring us happiness and fill whatever personal void we each have to the degree we allow. Accordingly, what innate right do we have to decide for someone else who can be a friend or lover. We can't decide what level of emotional or ever personal comfort and security someone brings to someone else. We can only make that decision for ourselves.

Historically, both governments and religious institutions (which for most of history, has been one and the same) have sought ways to control the population through its rules and dogma. Slowly, society has rolled much of that back, giving the individual power over themselves while both government and religious institutions continue to seek ways to reassert their authority. In this, Ireland's voter have acted in unison to reclaim personal responsibility over their lives much to the consternation of the Vatican and no doubt to conservatives in general. At what point should the government continue to exert its control over the lives of two adult individuals who freely choose to make a purely personal decision regarding their relationship? Do we really need the government's "permission" in the form of State sanctioned license? If we choose to seek to invoke the blessing of God or some other divinity, shouldn't that decision be between the two individuals and that religious institution? If a Church disapproves, fine. There may be others which will approve. Ultimately, churches and their like will grow or decline based on their ability to meet the needs of the community the same way businesses would prosper or close based on allowing or forbidding smoking (employees are, of course, free to work there or not, depending on their acceptance of the risk just as customers are free to eat there or somewhere else. The business which best meets the needs of the local market will succeed while the others either adapt or close). This really comes down to personal choice. Meanwhile, as far the State is concern, the religious institutions can still record and report the marriages for the government's tax records. As for the Irish, congratulations on having the moral certainty to made a bold statement to the world. Now, how about a pint?



How Many People in Ireland are Gay?
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-many-people-in-ireland-are-gay-1.2155679


37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same Sex Marriage Bans.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857


The New Exodus: Christians flee ISIS in the Middle East
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html


Vatican: Irish gay marriage vote a 'defeat for humanity'
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/27/vatican-irish-gay-marriage-vote-a-defeat-for-humanity/21187566/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-853854980

Rubber Soul: The Pope Approves Condoms

Good news everybody! The Pope has approved condoms! Wait a minute. The Pope has approved condoms? Are you kidding me? Since when does the Pontiff have a say in whether or not you use condoms? Well, if you’re Catholic, apparently he gets to decide about not just religious matters, but your sex life too. This is coming from a guy who’s not married; has no children (theoretically); and it’s questionable as to whether or not he’s ever been on a date right? We know, however, that he was a member of the Hitler Youth during WWII, so perhaps old habits are hard to die after all. Ok, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, let’s look at what the Pope really said about condom use.

Pope Benedict XVI said on November 20, 2010 that the use of condoms in certain cases was permissible, such as by prostitutes with HIV. However, it was still a “sin” in the eyes of the Church. While some saw the announcement as a step closer to everyday reality regarding human sexuality, Pope Benedict really wasn’t saying anything new; just saying in a different way. The Church forbids the use of condoms as form of birth control. It is the Catholic Church’s official line that anything short of abstinence was in conflict with Church policy as a violation of “God’s laws”, even when lives were at stake, such as in the case of AIDS, STDs, and unwanted pregnancies. Although similar statements have been made by Vatican officials in the past, the fact that this statement was made by the head of the 1.166 billion member Catholic Church gave it more authority.

The comment by Pope Benedict is but one in an upcoming book by German journalist Peter Seewald entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs of the Times”. The book came about as the result of a series of conversations with the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Seewald. The 83 year old “Panzer Cardinal” as he was formerly known, served as the hard-line doctorial watchdog for the popular John Paul II before becoming Pope in April of 2005. As youth, he served in the Hitler Youth from 1941 through 1945 (though he and his family were opponents to Nazism; believing that it counter to the teachings of the Catholic Church). Other topics covered in the book are the Pope’s opposition to ordination of women as being against the teachings of Jesus; mandatory celibacy of priests (I presume this includes child molestation too); as well as a prohibition on the teachings of Liberation Theology.

On the subject of condom use, the Pontiff said “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility” (in the Italian edition, “male sex worker” is changed to “female sex worker”). On the issue of AIDS in Africa, which has been rampant for decades, the Pope rejected not just the use of condoms, but stated that the use of condoms would “increase the problem”.

There is an estimated 22.5 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa infected with HIV and AIDS while North Africa and the Middle East has just over 460,000. South America currently has 1.4 million people infected. Asia has an estimated 4.5 million infected. In 2009 alone, some 1.6 million people became infected (mostly in Africa), of which 370,000 were children. The disease, which thus far has no known cure, left 1.8 million dead just in 2009 alone, and 16.6 million AIDS related orphans (http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm and http://www.avert.org/aids-impact-africa.htm).

On the issue of pregnancies, an estimated 38% were unwanted or unplanned. Worldwide, that’s some 80 million pregnancies and 42 million induced abortions a year. The cost of providing some form of contraceptive to the approximately 201 million worldwide at risk is believed to be around US $3.9 billion dollars per year. While a steep number, it would reduce the costs of unwanted pregnancies by $52 million dollars; prevent 1.5 maternal and child deaths annually; cut abortions by 64%; and reduce pregnancy related illnesses by 27 million lives at cost of $144 per individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy, http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj9(2)/12.pdf and http://www.populationalert.org/).

You should know that I’m not Catholic. I did attend a Catholic undergraduate and graduate school. I am very familiar with Catholic dogma, and I have many close friends who are Catholic. Now, with that said, here's my take on the Pontiff's remarks cocerning condom usage.

In 2009, treatment of AIDS costs approximate $25 billion annually worldwide (http://www.avert.org/universal-access.htm) and costs of providing some form of contraceptive to be nearing 17 billion dollars annually (http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/1937516/global_contraceptives_market_is_projected_to_reach_us172_billion_by/). That’s just the dollars. The “sense” part is no less as high. It’s the cost of a human life. In poor countries with little medical treatment available, it’s a death sentence. It effects education; food production; infrastructure; and creates social and economic stability in nations which are known for their inept and corrupt governments. The costs of unwanted pregnancies be it from unplanned pregnancies or from rape, in the United States alone is some $7 billions dollars. Globally, that figure reaches an estimated $21 billion dollars. Aside from the financial costs, additional “costs” include added stress on the social infrastructure as women (mostly teenage girls with little or nor education or job skills) turn to taxpayer assistance programs (if they even exist) such as taxpayer based healthcare, resulting in increased taxes; potential increases in crimes rates; an increase of poorly educated women into low paying jobs; an increase in the overall poverty rate; increases in the number of teenage suicides; increases in the number of abortions (either clinical or self-induced, which can maim or cause unintended death).

This, in my option, is what the Pope is espousing by denying the use of contraceptives. That an institution whose leadership is made up of older unmarried males, who has no practical concept of spousal love or family has magnanimously agreed to permit the use of condoms among prostitutes of all people is absurd to the point of ignorance; perhaps even criminal. It is unconceivable that a religious leader would condemn his flock to misery, poverty and almost certain death. Yes, abstinence is the best option to avoid HIVS, AIDS, the spread of STDS, and unwanted pregnancies, but it overlooks human nature. We are sexual animals. God gave us sex, not just for procreation, but as a physical and emotional expression of connecting with another human being, be it for love or enjoyment and that, my friends, is no sin.


New Radio Show!

Hey folks, Michael Lewis, the Kentucky President of Independent (Kentuckyhttp://independentkentucky.com/) and I will be hosting our own internet radio show starting December 5, 2010 starting at 2:00 PM EST. Our show will be called “Issues First”. We will be examining some of the issues affecting average working folks like you and I from a non-partisan perspective. You can tune in at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/independent-kentucky/2010/12/05/issues-first. I hope you’ll join us, and of course, we’d love to hear from you too!

Employee Free Choice Act---The Pope Says So!

Here's an interesting article I came across on the AFL-CIO News Blog site. A few weeks ago, a coalition of Philadelphia-area rabbis and rabbinical students, along with the Philadelphia Jewish Labor Commitee, called on the former Republican and current Democrat Arlen Spector to support the EFCA. Now comes the Pope! Enjoy the article.

Papal Encyclical: Workers’ Rights to Form Unions Must Be Honored
Posted By Seth Michaels On July 8, 2009 @ 9:55 am In Legislation & Politics

In a new [1] encyclical released yesterday by Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of the Catholic Church discusses the challenges of a global economy. He notes that workers’ ability to form a union and bargain is at risk and makes it clear it’s a matter of moral imperative to preserve that freedom.

Here’s what the pope has to say on the need for workers to have the freedom to form unions:
Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labor unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum, for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honored today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.

The [2] Vatican and a wide variety of Catholic leaders have continued to express support throughout the year for workers’ freedom to form unions, and many Catholic [3] scholars and organizations like the [4] Catholic Labor Network and [5] Catholics for Working Families have come out in support of the [6] Employee Free Choice Act.

Article printed from AFL-CIO NOW BLOG: http://blog.aflcio.org
URL to article: http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/07/08/papal-encyclical-workers-rights-to-form-unions-must-be-honored/


Homes Still Cost Too Much
By John F. Wasik,
Author of Cul-de-Sac Syndrome: Turning Around the Unsustainable American Dream

You would think with home prices still dropping like hailstones in most areas, that homes would be bargains.

The present buyer's market obscures a key fact about the housing crisis though: millions sought the refuge of cheap credit, subprime and adjustable loans during the boom because they were the easiest routes to homeownership in a time when house prices far outpaced income growth.

The sad fact is that the Great American Dream is still out of reach for far too many and it was the declining affordability of decent houses that was one of the triggers of the housing bust.

It's not that home prices haven't plummeted as banks unload foreclosed homes at fire-sale prices. The national median home price fell to $169,000 in the first quarter, according to the National Association of Realtors. Bank-owned properties are selling at 20-percent to 50-percent discounts.

"Contrary to popular belief," says Jeffrey Lubell, executive director of the Center for Housing Policy, "the recent decline in home prices has not resolved the nation's housing affordability problem."

Homes cost too much even before the bubble, so home buyers were willing to do anything to get into the domicile of their dreams. After all, homeownership is an American birthright, or at least that promise was sold to Americans starting in 1946. "Buy as much house as you can afford!" That's what the bankers and real estate agents were telling us for generations because of generous tax breaks and easy, often government-guaranteed financing.

Unfortunately the cost of land, homebuilding, taxes and homeownership far exceed what millions of households are able to cover with nearly stagnant personal income growth in this century. Inflation simply ate away at wages that just weren't enough to pay ever-rising bills for property taxes, maintenance, health care, education and energy.

Even at the height of the boom, Harvard researchers at their Joint Center for Housing Studies found that almost 18 million households were paying more than half of their incomes for housing (about one-third is considered reasonable). They were also hit hard by rising energy costs, which rose twice as fast as total spending from 2004-2006.

That wasn't always the best advice. The Harvard group last year found that "nowhere in America does a full-time minimum wage job cover the cost of a modest two-bedroom rental at 30 percent of income." Those stranded in the low-wage service economy, left behind by the technological revolution of the 1990s, could barely afford to rent a decent place in most cities, much less buy.

Those families who are paying more than half of their budget for housing have little to nothing left over for healthcare, food, clothing and education. That hurts more than 14 million children living in low-income households, whose families had less than $600 per month on average for other essential expenses.

So was anyone surprised when brokers and subprime lenders targeted minority and low-to middle-income neighborhoods then walked away when they sold trillions of these mortgages to Wall Street and the largest banks? They were selling the American Dream!

From sparkling new suburbs in the Sun Belt to inner cities, cheap money and neutron-bomb adjustable loans meant nobody had to be house poor -- at least for a year or two. Then the explosion hit and we're still feeling the aftershocks.

Further exacerbating the affordability crisis was the tendency for municipalities to favor upscale, sprawling home developments over middle- and low-income housing. Since home values are directly fueling property tax income in most places, nearly every community can get more money for schools and public services. When you base property tax revenue on home valuations, bigger price tags translate into better-equipped schools, fire stations and libraries.

Yet building McMansion subdivisions only inflated the housing bubble and reduced the stock of affordable homes. From 2002-2005, home prices soared 45 percent in areas restricted to upscale building, versus 24 percent in unrestricted areas. Moreover, by creating these "spurbs," sprawling urban areas unconnected to transportation and city centers except by endless highways, homeowners costs rose to catch up with needed infrastructure, schools and other public services.

The housing crisis has given us a rare opportunity to re-evaluate and re-invent the American Dream. As I note in my new book The Cul-de-Sac Syndrome, if we're to increase the homeownership rate, government will have to create incentives to build more affordable housing.

We'll also have to find a way to de-link property taxes from funding local services to reduce the number of overpriced homes in a handful of areas. Perhaps even eliminating tax breaks for mortgage interest would keep prices at realistic levels because you wouldn't be subsidizing ever-larger mortgages.

Ultimately, though, the American home and community will have to be re-invented. Houses will need to be ultra-energy efficient to reduce long-term ownership costs and even produce their own energy. This can be done with factory-built, green homes.

Then we'll have to build -- or re-build -- high density, walkable communities that are close to jobs and retail outlets. This is already happening throughout the U.S., although building and zoning codes need to change to allow this to happen on a large scale. Even more federal incentives are needed for green building.

We've just experienced a great teaching moment in history. The American Dream as we know it was not sustainable. Now we have the chance to make it affordable, ecologically sound and socially beneficial. It's a rare opportunity.

©2009 John F. Wasik, author of Cul-de-Sac Syndrome: Turning Around the Unsustainable American Dream

Author Bio
John F. Wasik, author of Cul-de-Sac Syndrome: Turning Around the Unsustainable American Dream, is a personal finance columnist for Bloomberg News and the author of several books. His most recent book, The Merchant of Power, was praised by Studs Terkel and well reviewed by the New York Times. Wasik has won more than fifteen awards for consumer journalism including the 2008 Lisagor and several from the National Press Club. He has appeared on such national media as NBC, NPR, and PBS. He lives in Chicago. For more information please visit www.johnwasik.com

Poll Results

I asked you how we should deal with rouge nations such as North Korea (which launched a seventh missile and may be behind the recent cyber assault on US and South Korean business and government sites). 12% said of you said the best thing to do was to ignore them (kind of like the classroom showoff I suppose). 37% of you thought we should talk with them. Perhaps they can be reasoned with. I guess that comes from Neville Chamberlain School of Diplomacy. Interestingly, none of you thought we should talk with them and cave into their demands, which is exactly what the US government has been doing for years now. And an amazing 50% of you, however, thought we should remove theses bullies from power. Good idea. Now make nice boys…or else!