Friday, February 08, 2013
Thursday, February 07, 2013
No Deal! Bishops to Administration: You Can't Force Catholics to Act Against Faith
From: CNS News
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement on Thursday signaling to the Obama Administration that the bishops will not make a separate deal to exempt Catholic institutions from an Obamacare mandate that requires health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs that leaves lay Catholic business owners and individual employees still subject to the mandate.
“In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath,” said Cardinal Dolan. “We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.”
The cardinal said the bishops will also continue to support the many lawsuits against the regulation--including those brought by private busineses--that are moving forward in federal courts around the country.
The Catholic Association, a group of Catholic laypersons dedicated to advancing the principles of the Catholic Church, issued a statement supporting the bishops' stand in defending the religious freedom of all Americans.
“We stand with the bishops today in rejecting the proposed ‘accommodation’ which still violates the religious freedom of Americans," said The Catholic Association.
"The bishops have recognized in their statement that when the religious freedom of one is compromised, the religious freedom of everyone is compromised, whether they be their own affiliated institutions or non-Catholic institutions or for-profit employers," said the association. "We call on this administration to provide an acceptable exemption for people of faith, and to put an end to its anti-religious liberty policies.”
Cardinal Dolan's statement was specifically responding to a new version of the Obamacare regulation that the Department of Health and Human Services proposed last week. The new proposal would slightly modify how Obamacare defines the “religious” institutions that can be exempted from the sterilization-contraceptive-abortifacient mandate. However, the proposed new version of the regulation would still force Catholic non-profits (such as hospitals, charities and colleges) to buy health care plans from carriers that, in turn, would be required to set up theoretically cost-free separate policies to provide free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to all beneficiaries. Further, the new proposal would provide no relief at all to individual Catholic lay people, whether they own a business or are employees.
Cardinal Dolan noted that the bishops will continue to judge the Obamacare regulation within the framework they laid out in a document the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops initially published last March and that all U.S. Catholic bishops unanimously approved in June.
“Third, the bishops explained that the ‘HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all:individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values,” said Cardinal Dolan, citing the bishops' unanimous declaration.
“This includes employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it. Friday's action confirms that HHS has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all to this ‘third class.’”
Cardinal Dolan’s statement included some placatory language, and the bishops seemed to be taking care to indicate they were not yet closing the door to working with the administration to find an outcome that will allow American Catholics to live both according to their faith and according to whatever final Obamacare regulations the administration ultimately decides to enforce.
“Because the stakes are so high, we will not cease from our effort to assure that healthcare for all does not mean freedom for few,” said Cardinal Dolan.
“Throughout the past year, we have been assured by the Administration that we will not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage," the Cardinal said. "We remain eager for the Administration to fulfill that pledge and to find acceptable solutions—we will affirm any genuine progress that is made, and we will redouble our efforts to overcome obstacles or setbacks. Thus, we welcome and will take seriously the Administration's invitation to submit our concerns through formal comments, and we will do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all. At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary.”
In an analysis published last August, the National Catholic Bioethics Center said that in keeping with Catholic moral teaching all Catholic business owners should drop health insurance coverage for all of their employees by no later than next January if the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate is not lifted.
Last year, when the initial regulation was finalized, many of the nation’s Catholic bishops wrote letters to their congregations, declaring: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement on Thursday signaling to the Obama Administration that the bishops will not make a separate deal to exempt Catholic institutions from an Obamacare mandate that requires health-care plans to cover sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs that leaves lay Catholic business owners and individual employees still subject to the mandate.
“In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath,” said Cardinal Dolan. “We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.”
The cardinal said the bishops will also continue to support the many lawsuits against the regulation--including those brought by private busineses--that are moving forward in federal courts around the country.
The Catholic Association, a group of Catholic laypersons dedicated to advancing the principles of the Catholic Church, issued a statement supporting the bishops' stand in defending the religious freedom of all Americans.
“We stand with the bishops today in rejecting the proposed ‘accommodation’ which still violates the religious freedom of Americans," said The Catholic Association.
"The bishops have recognized in their statement that when the religious freedom of one is compromised, the religious freedom of everyone is compromised, whether they be their own affiliated institutions or non-Catholic institutions or for-profit employers," said the association. "We call on this administration to provide an acceptable exemption for people of faith, and to put an end to its anti-religious liberty policies.”
Cardinal Dolan's statement was specifically responding to a new version of the Obamacare regulation that the Department of Health and Human Services proposed last week. The new proposal would slightly modify how Obamacare defines the “religious” institutions that can be exempted from the sterilization-contraceptive-abortifacient mandate. However, the proposed new version of the regulation would still force Catholic non-profits (such as hospitals, charities and colleges) to buy health care plans from carriers that, in turn, would be required to set up theoretically cost-free separate policies to provide free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to all beneficiaries. Further, the new proposal would provide no relief at all to individual Catholic lay people, whether they own a business or are employees.
Cardinal Dolan noted that the bishops will continue to judge the Obamacare regulation within the framework they laid out in a document the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops initially published last March and that all U.S. Catholic bishops unanimously approved in June.
“Third, the bishops explained that the ‘HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all:individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values,” said Cardinal Dolan, citing the bishops' unanimous declaration.
“This includes employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it. Friday's action confirms that HHS has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all to this ‘third class.’”
Cardinal Dolan’s statement included some placatory language, and the bishops seemed to be taking care to indicate they were not yet closing the door to working with the administration to find an outcome that will allow American Catholics to live both according to their faith and according to whatever final Obamacare regulations the administration ultimately decides to enforce.
“Because the stakes are so high, we will not cease from our effort to assure that healthcare for all does not mean freedom for few,” said Cardinal Dolan.
“Throughout the past year, we have been assured by the Administration that we will not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage," the Cardinal said. "We remain eager for the Administration to fulfill that pledge and to find acceptable solutions—we will affirm any genuine progress that is made, and we will redouble our efforts to overcome obstacles or setbacks. Thus, we welcome and will take seriously the Administration's invitation to submit our concerns through formal comments, and we will do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all. At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary.”
In an analysis published last August, the National Catholic Bioethics Center said that in keeping with Catholic moral teaching all Catholic business owners should drop health insurance coverage for all of their employees by no later than next January if the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate is not lifted.
Last year, when the initial regulation was finalized, many of the nation’s Catholic bishops wrote letters to their congregations, declaring: “We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law.”
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Another Attempt to Murder Free Speech in Denmark
From: Gatestone Institute
An unidentified assailant wielding a handgun fired a shot at Hedegaard, but fled on foot after the bullet missed its intended victim and the gun subsequently jammed.
According to Danish media, the gunman, in a postal service uniform, rang the doorbell of Hedegaard's apartment building on the pretext of delivering a package. When Hedegaard opened the front door, the man pulled out a gun and fired a shot, narrowly missing Hedegaard's head.
Danish police say they are searching for the suspect, whom they describe as "a man of a different ethnic background than Danish." He is believed to be in his 20s and has a "Middle Eastern appearance." Speculation is that the assailant is a Muslim because of critical statements that Hedegaard has made regarding Islam.
Hedegaard is the president of the Danish Free Press Society, a watchdog group that often warns that free speech is under threat from radical Islam. Hedegaard also co-edits a weekly online newspaper called Dispatch International, which covers stories in Danish, English and Swedish about a variety of topics, including content that is critical of radical Islam.
Hedegaard's partner, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist, says the attack was a brazen attempt to silence a courageous free-speech warrior, one who has not been afraid to challenge official myths about the impact of multiculturalism and Muslim mass immigration on European society.
As if to prove Carlqvist's point, Danish officialdom has uniformly linked the attack on Hedegaard with the exercise of free speech in the country.
Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a Social Democrat, said: "An attack on Lars Hedegaard is a heinous act which I condemn in the strongest terms. It is even worse if the attack is rooted in an attempt to prevent Lars Hedegaard to use his freedom of expression."
Former Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who leads the center-right Liberal Party, said the attack was a "cowardly and cruel act." He added: "If this action is rooted in preventing Lars Hedegaard from using his freedom of speech, we are witnessing an attack on all Danes."
The former leader of the conservative Danish People's Party, Pia Kjærsgaard, who has long warned about the negative effects of multiculturalism and runaway immigration, said it is "un-Danish" if people cannot give their opinions without risking their lives. She added: "It is incomprehensible and shocking if the motive is political. If this is the case, it shows that it is dangerous to make use of our constitutional freedom of expression.
"I live in a government safe house. I wear a bulletproof jacket. I have not walked the streets ... in more than seven years. [I am] imprisoned in my own country for the mere fact that I have spoken out against the enemies of the West." — Geert Wilders, MP, NetherlandsLars Hedegaard, a well-known seventy-year-old free speech activist and critic of Islam, narrowly escaped a murder attempt on February 5 outside his home in Copenhagen, Denmark.
An unidentified assailant wielding a handgun fired a shot at Hedegaard, but fled on foot after the bullet missed its intended victim and the gun subsequently jammed.
According to Danish media, the gunman, in a postal service uniform, rang the doorbell of Hedegaard's apartment building on the pretext of delivering a package. When Hedegaard opened the front door, the man pulled out a gun and fired a shot, narrowly missing Hedegaard's head.
Danish police say they are searching for the suspect, whom they describe as "a man of a different ethnic background than Danish." He is believed to be in his 20s and has a "Middle Eastern appearance." Speculation is that the assailant is a Muslim because of critical statements that Hedegaard has made regarding Islam.
Hedegaard is the president of the Danish Free Press Society, a watchdog group that often warns that free speech is under threat from radical Islam. Hedegaard also co-edits a weekly online newspaper called Dispatch International, which covers stories in Danish, English and Swedish about a variety of topics, including content that is critical of radical Islam.
Hedegaard's partner, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist, says the attack was a brazen attempt to silence a courageous free-speech warrior, one who has not been afraid to challenge official myths about the impact of multiculturalism and Muslim mass immigration on European society.
As if to prove Carlqvist's point, Danish officialdom has uniformly linked the attack on Hedegaard with the exercise of free speech in the country.
Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a Social Democrat, said: "An attack on Lars Hedegaard is a heinous act which I condemn in the strongest terms. It is even worse if the attack is rooted in an attempt to prevent Lars Hedegaard to use his freedom of expression."
Former Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, who leads the center-right Liberal Party, said the attack was a "cowardly and cruel act." He added: "If this action is rooted in preventing Lars Hedegaard from using his freedom of speech, we are witnessing an attack on all Danes."
The former leader of the conservative Danish People's Party, Pia Kjærsgaard, who has long warned about the negative effects of multiculturalism and runaway immigration, said it is "un-Danish" if people cannot give their opinions without risking their lives. She added: "It is incomprehensible and shocking if the motive is political. If this is the case, it shows that it is dangerous to make use of our constitutional freedom of expression.
Fundamentalists driving Christians out of Libya
From: The Daily Star
Christians are being driven out of eastern Libya by Muslim fundamentalists, the Catholic Church’s main clergyman in the country told the Vatican missionary news agency Fides.
The situation was “critical” and the “atmosphere very tense” in the Cyrenaica region, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli said in the interview Thursday.
He said two religious communities are leaving “after being pressured by fundamentalists,” adding that the Apostolic Vicar of Benghazi was cautioned to take shelter ahead of a large-scale demonstration on Feb. 20.
“In past days, the Congregation of the Holy Family of Spoleto who had been there for nearly 100 years were forced to abandon Derna,” east of the main eastern city of Benghazi, he said.
“In Barce [located between Benghazi and Derna] the Franciscan Sisters of the Child Jesus will leave their home in coming days.”
Friday, Martinelli told Vatican Radio that for some time now fundamentalism has governed decisions in Libya.
Christians have voiced fear of a rise in sectarian sentiment in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation following the 2011 revolt that toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi and in which hard-line Islamists played a major part.
Before the uprising, 3 percent of Libya’s population of around 6.3 million were Christian. Now only a couple thousand of them remain, with the majority of them expatriates.
In December, two Egyptians died in a blast at a Christian Coptic church in the Libyan town of Dafniya, and two others were wounded.
Christians are being driven out of eastern Libya by Muslim fundamentalists, the Catholic Church’s main clergyman in the country told the Vatican missionary news agency Fides.
The situation was “critical” and the “atmosphere very tense” in the Cyrenaica region, the Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli Giovanni Innocenzo Martinelli said in the interview Thursday.
He said two religious communities are leaving “after being pressured by fundamentalists,” adding that the Apostolic Vicar of Benghazi was cautioned to take shelter ahead of a large-scale demonstration on Feb. 20.
“In past days, the Congregation of the Holy Family of Spoleto who had been there for nearly 100 years were forced to abandon Derna,” east of the main eastern city of Benghazi, he said.
“In Barce [located between Benghazi and Derna] the Franciscan Sisters of the Child Jesus will leave their home in coming days.”
Friday, Martinelli told Vatican Radio that for some time now fundamentalism has governed decisions in Libya.
Christians have voiced fear of a rise in sectarian sentiment in the overwhelmingly Muslim nation following the 2011 revolt that toppled dictator Moammar Gadhafi and in which hard-line Islamists played a major part.
Before the uprising, 3 percent of Libya’s population of around 6.3 million were Christian. Now only a couple thousand of them remain, with the majority of them expatriates.
In December, two Egyptians died in a blast at a Christian Coptic church in the Libyan town of Dafniya, and two others were wounded.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Oregon AG Investigates Baker's Refusal to Make Wedding Cake for Lesbians
From: CNS News
The Oregon attorney general’s office is investigating a Portland-area bakery after a lesbian couple filed a complaint alleging that the owner discriminated against them when he declined to make a wedding cake for their same-sex “marriage.”
Aaron Klein, who owns and operates Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery along with his wife in Gresham, Ore., said he received notice of the complaint last week from the Oregon Department of Justice.
The complaint stems from an incident which occurred Jan. 17, when a woman came in with her mother to test wedding cakes.
“I did my normal thing, where I asked what the bride-and-grooms’ first names were to write down on our wedding cake contract,” Klein told CNSNews.com.
“She – the girl – giggled a little bit and then informed me it was two brides. At which point, I looked up from my paper, and said, ‘I’m sorry. I hope I didn’t waste your time, but we don’t do same-sex marriages. We don’t believe it is right.”
Klein said the woman and her mother “looked at each other with a little bit of a disgusted look” and got up to leave.
“Ten minutes later the mother came back in and told me I got to say my piece and I have a right to my opinion, but she wanted to give me hers, or say her opinion, and I said, ‘OK, go ahead.
“She proceeded to tell me that she used to think like I did, then her daughter told her she was gay, and she realized that God had made her daughter that way. And disagreed with her. I told her the Bible doesn’t say that.
She told me that I needed to read my Bible, and I quoted Leviticus 20:13, at which point she told me I was wrong, and stormed out.”
Jeff Manning, communications director for Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, confirmed for CNSNews.com that the complaint, which had been filed by Laurel Bowman of Portland, was being investigated by the consumer protection division of the Oregon Department of Justice. (See Complaint)
According to the complaint, Bowman said that she and her fiancé purchased a wedding cake in November of 2011 for her mother’s wedding for $250.
“When we decided to get married ourselves we chose to go back and purchase a second cake,” the complaint stated.
“When asked dfor (sic) a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid $250 once and having done business in the past. We were informed that our money was equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable.”
Bowman could not be reached for this story.
Manning said that while Oregon does not sanction same-sex marriage, it is against Oregon law for “a public accommodation” to refuse to do business with a customer on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
The baker, meanwhile, told CNSNews.com that neither he nor his wife have been secretive about their beliefs, and that others have asked in the past if he makes cakes for same-sex weddings – without incident.
“Usually it starts out with questions – ‘Do you do same-sex wedding cakes?’ And we’ve always been really respectful about it and said, ‘No, it’s against our religious beliefs, and we just don’t do them.
Everybody up ‘till this point has been really understanding.”
Klein said he is merely standing up for his Christian beliefs.
“I believe that the Book of Genesis tells us, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife,’ and I believe that when it says a man and a woman, it means a man and a woman. I believe that that is the institution of marriage from the beginning of time, and it’s something God ordained. I don’t want to be a part of the redefinition of that in any way, shape or form.”
Mat Staver, president of religious-liberty law firm Liberty Counsel, told CNSNews.com that no one should be forced to violate their religious beliefs just to stay in the bakery business. But that constitutional principle is no longer a slam-dunk.
“I think, clearly someone who raises a religious rights objection clearly has a right to be able to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs, and in this case should not have to cater a same-sex wedding,” Staver told CNSNews.com.
“However, I do know that in many parts of the country where there is either a sexual orientation or gender identity non-discrimination law, or even worse, a state that sanctions same-sex marriage, that when religious freedom collides with the homosexual agenda, the homosexual agenda, typically has been winning and religious free exercise has been losing.”
According to the Oregon Department of Justice, the matter is currently at the preliminary stage.
The Oregon attorney general’s office is investigating a Portland-area bakery after a lesbian couple filed a complaint alleging that the owner discriminated against them when he declined to make a wedding cake for their same-sex “marriage.”
Aaron Klein, who owns and operates Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery along with his wife in Gresham, Ore., said he received notice of the complaint last week from the Oregon Department of Justice.
The complaint stems from an incident which occurred Jan. 17, when a woman came in with her mother to test wedding cakes.
“I did my normal thing, where I asked what the bride-and-grooms’ first names were to write down on our wedding cake contract,” Klein told CNSNews.com.
“She – the girl – giggled a little bit and then informed me it was two brides. At which point, I looked up from my paper, and said, ‘I’m sorry. I hope I didn’t waste your time, but we don’t do same-sex marriages. We don’t believe it is right.”
Klein said the woman and her mother “looked at each other with a little bit of a disgusted look” and got up to leave.
“Ten minutes later the mother came back in and told me I got to say my piece and I have a right to my opinion, but she wanted to give me hers, or say her opinion, and I said, ‘OK, go ahead.
“She proceeded to tell me that she used to think like I did, then her daughter told her she was gay, and she realized that God had made her daughter that way. And disagreed with her. I told her the Bible doesn’t say that.
She told me that I needed to read my Bible, and I quoted Leviticus 20:13, at which point she told me I was wrong, and stormed out.”
Jeff Manning, communications director for Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, confirmed for CNSNews.com that the complaint, which had been filed by Laurel Bowman of Portland, was being investigated by the consumer protection division of the Oregon Department of Justice. (See Complaint)
According to the complaint, Bowman said that she and her fiancé purchased a wedding cake in November of 2011 for her mother’s wedding for $250.
“When we decided to get married ourselves we chose to go back and purchase a second cake,” the complaint stated.
“When asked dfor (sic) a grooms name my soon to be mother in law informed them of my name. The owner then proceeded to say we were abominations unto the lord and refused to make another cake for us despite having already paid $250 once and having done business in the past. We were informed that our money was equal, my fiancé reduced to tears. This is absolutely unacceptable.”
Bowman could not be reached for this story.
Manning said that while Oregon does not sanction same-sex marriage, it is against Oregon law for “a public accommodation” to refuse to do business with a customer on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
The baker, meanwhile, told CNSNews.com that neither he nor his wife have been secretive about their beliefs, and that others have asked in the past if he makes cakes for same-sex weddings – without incident.
“Usually it starts out with questions – ‘Do you do same-sex wedding cakes?’ And we’ve always been really respectful about it and said, ‘No, it’s against our religious beliefs, and we just don’t do them.
Everybody up ‘till this point has been really understanding.”
Klein said he is merely standing up for his Christian beliefs.
“I believe that the Book of Genesis tells us, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife,’ and I believe that when it says a man and a woman, it means a man and a woman. I believe that that is the institution of marriage from the beginning of time, and it’s something God ordained. I don’t want to be a part of the redefinition of that in any way, shape or form.”
Mat Staver, president of religious-liberty law firm Liberty Counsel, told CNSNews.com that no one should be forced to violate their religious beliefs just to stay in the bakery business. But that constitutional principle is no longer a slam-dunk.
“I think, clearly someone who raises a religious rights objection clearly has a right to be able to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs, and in this case should not have to cater a same-sex wedding,” Staver told CNSNews.com.
“However, I do know that in many parts of the country where there is either a sexual orientation or gender identity non-discrimination law, or even worse, a state that sanctions same-sex marriage, that when religious freedom collides with the homosexual agenda, the homosexual agenda, typically has been winning and religious free exercise has been losing.”
According to the Oregon Department of Justice, the matter is currently at the preliminary stage.
WWII Battle of Midway hero Jim Muri dies at 93
From: Army Times
World War II pilot James Muri, who saved his crippled B-26 bomber and crew by buzzing the flight deck of a Japanese aircraft carrier during the Battle of Midway, has died in Billings. He was 93.
Muri died Sunday of natural causes, according to Michelotti-Sawyers Mortuary.
On June 4, 1942, Muri piloted one of four B-26 bombers that took off from Midway Island to attack a Japanese fleet planning to invade the U.S. outpost about 1,100 miles northwest of Hawaii.
Japanese fighter planes shot the bombers with machine guns and cannons. Muri’s bomber was struck, and three crewmen were wounded, but he launched a torpedo at the aircraft carrier Akagi and then flew the plane down its flight deck to avoid the ship’s guns, which were all pointed outward.
Muri flew lower than treetop level above the deck of the massive ship, reasoning that skimming the flight deck gave him the best chance to survive.
After the plane crash-landed on Midway Island, officials counted more than 500 bullet holes in the bomber, the Billings Gazette reported.
Muri and his crew were awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. In 2003, Muri received the Jimmy Doolittle Award for outstanding service to the U.S. Army Air Corps in a ceremony in Washington, D.C.
Singer and radio host Lonnie Bell paid tribute to the feat in his song “Midway,” which he wrote in 1976.
Last June marked the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Midway, which changed the course of the Pacific war. American forces sank four aircraft carriers despite being outnumbered in the three-day battle, diminishing Japan’s airstrike capabilities.
The U.S. lost one carrier, 145 planes and 307 men. Besides the four aircraft carriers, Japan lost a heavy cruiser, 291 planes and 4,800 men in the battle.
Muri left active duty in 1959 and returned to Montana in 1969. He and his wife, Alice, lived on Bridger Creek east of Big Timber for 30 years before moving to Billings in 1999. His wife died in 2001.
A memorial service for Muri is scheduled for Thursday at Michelotti-Sawyers Mortuary. He is to be buried Friday at the veterans’ cemetery in Miles City.
World War II pilot James Muri, who saved his crippled B-26 bomber and crew by buzzing the flight deck of a Japanese aircraft carrier during the Battle of Midway, has died in Billings. He was 93.
Muri died Sunday of natural causes, according to Michelotti-Sawyers Mortuary.
On June 4, 1942, Muri piloted one of four B-26 bombers that took off from Midway Island to attack a Japanese fleet planning to invade the U.S. outpost about 1,100 miles northwest of Hawaii.
Japanese fighter planes shot the bombers with machine guns and cannons. Muri’s bomber was struck, and three crewmen were wounded, but he launched a torpedo at the aircraft carrier Akagi and then flew the plane down its flight deck to avoid the ship’s guns, which were all pointed outward.
Muri flew lower than treetop level above the deck of the massive ship, reasoning that skimming the flight deck gave him the best chance to survive.
After the plane crash-landed on Midway Island, officials counted more than 500 bullet holes in the bomber, the Billings Gazette reported.
Muri and his crew were awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. In 2003, Muri received the Jimmy Doolittle Award for outstanding service to the U.S. Army Air Corps in a ceremony in Washington, D.C.
Singer and radio host Lonnie Bell paid tribute to the feat in his song “Midway,” which he wrote in 1976.
Last June marked the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Midway, which changed the course of the Pacific war. American forces sank four aircraft carriers despite being outnumbered in the three-day battle, diminishing Japan’s airstrike capabilities.
The U.S. lost one carrier, 145 planes and 307 men. Besides the four aircraft carriers, Japan lost a heavy cruiser, 291 planes and 4,800 men in the battle.
Muri left active duty in 1959 and returned to Montana in 1969. He and his wife, Alice, lived on Bridger Creek east of Big Timber for 30 years before moving to Billings in 1999. His wife died in 2001.
A memorial service for Muri is scheduled for Thursday at Michelotti-Sawyers Mortuary. He is to be buried Friday at the veterans’ cemetery in Miles City.
CBO: Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law
From: Washington Times
President Obama's health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.
CBO said that this year's tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they'll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade.
But the non-partisan agency also expects fewer people to have to pay individual penalties to the IRS than it earlier projects, because of a better method for calculating incomes that found more people will be exempt.
Overall, the new health provisions are expected to cost the government $1.165 trillion over the next decade — the same as last year's projection.
With other spending cuts and tax increases called for in the health law, though, CBO still says Mr. Obama's signature achievement will reduce budget deficits in the short term.
During the health care debate Mr. Obama had said individuals would be able to keep their plans.
President Obama's health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.
CBO said that this year's tax cuts have changed the incentives for businesses and made it less attractive to pay for insurance, meaning fewer will decide to do so. Instead, they'll choose to pay a penalty to the government, totaling $13 billion in higher fees over the next decade.
But the non-partisan agency also expects fewer people to have to pay individual penalties to the IRS than it earlier projects, because of a better method for calculating incomes that found more people will be exempt.
Overall, the new health provisions are expected to cost the government $1.165 trillion over the next decade — the same as last year's projection.
With other spending cuts and tax increases called for in the health law, though, CBO still says Mr. Obama's signature achievement will reduce budget deficits in the short term.
During the health care debate Mr. Obama had said individuals would be able to keep their plans.
The Fall and Rise of the West: Foreign Affairs
From: Foreign Affairs
The 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed have had devastating effects on the U.S. economy and millions of American lives. But the U.S. economy will emerge from its trauma stronger and widely restructured. Europe should eventually experience a similar strengthening, although its future is less certain and its recovery will take longer to develop. The United States is much further along because its financial crisis struck three years before Europe's, in 2008, causing headwinds that have pressured it ever since. It will take another two to three years for these to subside, but after that, U.S. economic growth should outperform expectations. In contrast, Europe is still in the midst of its financial crisis. If historical logic prevails there, it will take four to six years for strong European growth to materialize.
Such strengthening in both regions will occur for one major reason: the crisis years have triggered wide economic restructuring. Sweeping changes in government finances, banking systems, and manufacturing are under way, as are structural reforms in labor markets. All this is proving once again that global capital markets, the most powerful economic force on earth, can effect changes beyond the capacity of normal political processes. And in this case, they can refute all the forecasts of Western economic decline. Indeed, in the years ahead, the United States and Europe could once again become locomotives for global economic growth.
This is not to say that the crises were worth the pain; they most definitely were not. There is palpable suffering on both sides of the Atlantic due to unemployment and government austerity measures. It is tragic that so many people have lost their jobs and will never recover them. And it is socially corrosive that the crises have accentuated existing trends toward greater income inequality. But these events happened, and the subject being addressed here is their long-term impact.
The 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed have had devastating effects on the U.S. economy and millions of American lives. But the U.S. economy will emerge from its trauma stronger and widely restructured. Europe should eventually experience a similar strengthening, although its future is less certain and its recovery will take longer to develop. The United States is much further along because its financial crisis struck three years before Europe's, in 2008, causing headwinds that have pressured it ever since. It will take another two to three years for these to subside, but after that, U.S. economic growth should outperform expectations. In contrast, Europe is still in the midst of its financial crisis. If historical logic prevails there, it will take four to six years for strong European growth to materialize.
Such strengthening in both regions will occur for one major reason: the crisis years have triggered wide economic restructuring. Sweeping changes in government finances, banking systems, and manufacturing are under way, as are structural reforms in labor markets. All this is proving once again that global capital markets, the most powerful economic force on earth, can effect changes beyond the capacity of normal political processes. And in this case, they can refute all the forecasts of Western economic decline. Indeed, in the years ahead, the United States and Europe could once again become locomotives for global economic growth.
This is not to say that the crises were worth the pain; they most definitely were not. There is palpable suffering on both sides of the Atlantic due to unemployment and government austerity measures. It is tragic that so many people have lost their jobs and will never recover them. And it is socially corrosive that the crises have accentuated existing trends toward greater income inequality. But these events happened, and the subject being addressed here is their long-term impact.
When progressives wage war on reason
From: New Scientist
IN 2007, fresh off an election victory in both chambers of Congress, the Democratic party set out to fulfil its campaign promise to make the US more sustainable - starting with the building they had just gained control of.
With their "Green the Capitol" initiative, the Democrats planned to make the building a model of sustainability and an example to us all. They replaced light bulbs and bathroom fixtures, but perhaps most significantly, they took the step of greening the congressional cafeteria. Cost was no object. Good thing, too.
The problem, as they saw it, was an excessive reliance on environmentally wasteful styrofoam containers and plastic utensils. And so they issued a decree: from now on, the cafeteria would use biodegradable containers and utensils.
They claimed science was on their side: the utensils could be composted, and would thus be better for the environment. The result was a miracle of sustainability, at least according to internal reports, which claimed to have kept 650 tonnes of waste out of landfill between 2007 and 2010.
The only problem was that the "green" replacements were worse for the environment. The spoons melted in soup, so people had to use more than one to get through lunch. The knives could barely cut butter without breaking. And instead of composting easily, they had to be processed in a special pulper and then driven to Maryland in giant trucks.
In 2010 an independent analysis found that the saving was equivalent to removing a single car from the road - at a cost of $475,000 per year. Wary of disappointing their environmentally concerned supporters, Democrats waited until the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in 2011 - and then suggested that the programme be killed. Republicans duly instructed the cafeteria to revert to using utensils and containers that actually worked.
Dodd-Frank Creates a Bizarro World Of Housing Finance
From: Real Clear Markets
In Superman comics there exists a Bizarro World where the inhabitants do the opposite of all things normal. For example, a salesman does a brisk trade selling Bizarro bonds: "Guaranteed to lose money for you".
A Bizarro World of home finance is being created by Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act's new enforcement agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In this world a loan with little or no money down, a FICO credit score of 580, and a total debt-to-income-ratio of over 50% is defined as a prime loan, even though it has a nearly 30% likelihood of ending in foreclosure. Like the bond salesman in Bizarro World, this sets up for failure working-class families striving to achieve the American dream. In the real world a prime loan with 20 percent down, a FICO score of 720 (the average score of all individuals in the U.S.), and a 40% debt ratio has a 1.5 percent chance of foreclosure.
The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted following a mortgage meltdown, but perpetuates the same policies that made the meltdown inevitable. It was passed in 2010 with the stated purpose of "promot[ing] the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ‘too big to fail', to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, [and] to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices." Like the 1992 act that promised to protect taxpayers from a bail out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and did the opposite, the Dodd-Frank Act will lead to a similar perverse outcome.
One of the CFPB's core functions is to assure "that responsible, affordable mortgage credit remains available to consumers." This is not the first time Congress has attempted to legislate the availability of "affordable mortgage credit." Recall Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's affordable lending mandates, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) National Homeownership Strategy with its goal of doing away with downpayments, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) with its "flexible" underwriting. This increase in leverage allowed HUD to trumpet a self-described "revolution in affordable lending", ignoring the resulting in boom in home prices, thereby making them unaffordable
This time, we have the CFPB relying on the same affordable lending nostrums. These placate community activists still eager to make sure that low-income borrowers have access to mortgage credit with little regard for the failure rate, and a National Association of Realtors still interested in assuring that there's no shortage of credit for any marginal buyer who can be made eligible to buy a home.
In Bizarro World a prime loan has little to do with borrower qualifications or the actual riskiness of the loan. Irresponsible loans setting families up to fail are called qualified so long as they are approved by a government-sanctioned underwriting system.
In the real world a prime borrower puts sufficient money down so as to have skin-in-the game and demonstrates willingness and ability to pay.
In Bizarro World the government does not price for risk; instead credit is allocated by government agencies based on political goals. Here, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) charges the same to insure a loan with 5% down, a FICO credit score of 580, and a total debt-to-income-ratio of 55% as for a loan with 20% down, a FICO credit score of 740, and a total debt-to-income-ratio of 30%.
In the real world lenders allocate credit by charging borrowers different interest rates based on risk, and protect their shareholders by operating at safe levels of leverage.
In the Bizarro World of Dodd-Frank Act, borrowers are deemed incapable of making a responsible decision and all financial institutions are presumed evil. Thus thousands upon thousands of pages of mind-numbing regulations are required to "protect" consumers. Beyond being complex and confusing, at times these regulations conflict. The evil financial institutions are presumed staffed by employees who never make a mistake. The resulting gotchas assure that the tort bar has plenty of opportunity make evil institutions pay. This favors ‘‘too big to fail'' institutions which Dodd-Frank vowed to end.
In the real world borrowers would be expected to act responsibly and risky lenders would be allowed to fail, regardless of size.
In Bizarro World home loans are another form of entitlement, where unqualified borrowers stamped "prime" by government underwriting systems allowed to avoid making monthly payments for 1, 2, or 3 years or more.
In the real word lending is a business based on credit standards and markets are permitted to correct.
The Dodd-Frank Act did little to restrict excessive borrower or government mortgage guarantor leverage. Instead it provided a clear path for the government to expand both, laying the foundation for the next bust and taxpayer bailout.
A Bizarro World of home finance is being created by Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act's new enforcement agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In this world a loan with little or no money down, a FICO credit score of 580, and a total debt-to-income-ratio of over 50% is defined as a prime loan, even though it has a nearly 30% likelihood of ending in foreclosure. Like the bond salesman in Bizarro World, this sets up for failure working-class families striving to achieve the American dream. In the real world a prime loan with 20 percent down, a FICO score of 720 (the average score of all individuals in the U.S.), and a 40% debt ratio has a 1.5 percent chance of foreclosure.
The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted following a mortgage meltdown, but perpetuates the same policies that made the meltdown inevitable. It was passed in 2010 with the stated purpose of "promot[ing] the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ‘too big to fail', to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, [and] to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices." Like the 1992 act that promised to protect taxpayers from a bail out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and did the opposite, the Dodd-Frank Act will lead to a similar perverse outcome.
One of the CFPB's core functions is to assure "that responsible, affordable mortgage credit remains available to consumers." This is not the first time Congress has attempted to legislate the availability of "affordable mortgage credit." Recall Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's affordable lending mandates, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) National Homeownership Strategy with its goal of doing away with downpayments, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) with its "flexible" underwriting. This increase in leverage allowed HUD to trumpet a self-described "revolution in affordable lending", ignoring the resulting in boom in home prices, thereby making them unaffordable
This time, we have the CFPB relying on the same affordable lending nostrums. These placate community activists still eager to make sure that low-income borrowers have access to mortgage credit with little regard for the failure rate, and a National Association of Realtors still interested in assuring that there's no shortage of credit for any marginal buyer who can be made eligible to buy a home.
In Bizarro World a prime loan has little to do with borrower qualifications or the actual riskiness of the loan. Irresponsible loans setting families up to fail are called qualified so long as they are approved by a government-sanctioned underwriting system.
In the real world a prime borrower puts sufficient money down so as to have skin-in-the game and demonstrates willingness and ability to pay.
In Bizarro World the government does not price for risk; instead credit is allocated by government agencies based on political goals. Here, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) charges the same to insure a loan with 5% down, a FICO credit score of 580, and a total debt-to-income-ratio of 55% as for a loan with 20% down, a FICO credit score of 740, and a total debt-to-income-ratio of 30%.
In the real world lenders allocate credit by charging borrowers different interest rates based on risk, and protect their shareholders by operating at safe levels of leverage.
In the Bizarro World of Dodd-Frank Act, borrowers are deemed incapable of making a responsible decision and all financial institutions are presumed evil. Thus thousands upon thousands of pages of mind-numbing regulations are required to "protect" consumers. Beyond being complex and confusing, at times these regulations conflict. The evil financial institutions are presumed staffed by employees who never make a mistake. The resulting gotchas assure that the tort bar has plenty of opportunity make evil institutions pay. This favors ‘‘too big to fail'' institutions which Dodd-Frank vowed to end.
In the real world borrowers would be expected to act responsibly and risky lenders would be allowed to fail, regardless of size.
In Bizarro World home loans are another form of entitlement, where unqualified borrowers stamped "prime" by government underwriting systems allowed to avoid making monthly payments for 1, 2, or 3 years or more.
In the real word lending is a business based on credit standards and markets are permitted to correct.
The Dodd-Frank Act did little to restrict excessive borrower or government mortgage guarantor leverage. Instead it provided a clear path for the government to expand both, laying the foundation for the next bust and taxpayer bailout.
Monday, February 04, 2013
HHS Mandate Revisions Will Force Religious Groups to Cover Abortions
From: LifeNews.com
On Friday, the Obama administration released proposed revisions to the controversial HHS mandate. The revisions offer no help for religious businesses, individuals or non-profit religious groups that don’t want to be forced to obey it.
A leading pro-life source on Capitol Hill provided an analysis to LifeNews about how the proposals play out.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the requirement that all insurance plans cover “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”
The proposed rule is being issued in response to the many faith-based institutions and religious business owners that continue to object to this mandate on grounds that it forces them to violate their deeply held religious or moral objections to some or all such coverage – especially coverage that includes the morning-after pill (Plan B) or week-after pill (ella) that causes abortions.
“The proposed rule is open for comment until April 5, 2013. However, it is extremely similar to proposals rejected by pro-life leaders in the past,” the source told LifeNews.
The proposed rule would:
On Friday, the Obama administration released proposed revisions to the controversial HHS mandate. The revisions offer no help for religious businesses, individuals or non-profit religious groups that don’t want to be forced to obey it.
A leading pro-life source on Capitol Hill provided an analysis to LifeNews about how the proposals play out.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the requirement that all insurance plans cover “all Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.”
The proposed rule is being issued in response to the many faith-based institutions and religious business owners that continue to object to this mandate on grounds that it forces them to violate their deeply held religious or moral objections to some or all such coverage – especially coverage that includes the morning-after pill (Plan B) or week-after pill (ella) that causes abortions.
“The proposed rule is open for comment until April 5, 2013. However, it is extremely similar to proposals rejected by pro-life leaders in the past,” the source told LifeNews.
The proposed rule would:
- · Have NO impact on businesses run by people of faith, such as Tyndale House (a publisher of the Bible), Hobby Lobby and Hercules Industries. (If you would like fact sheets and background on each of the businesses that have filed suits against the mandate, please feel free to contact me or Allison Hines).
- · Provide NO options for individuals seeking plans that accommodate their values on the exchanges.
- · Continue to only apply the full exemption to churches and their auxiliary institutions. It appears that this narrow exemption will NOT apply to nonprofits like the University of Notre Dame, Wheaton College and Catholic Charities. Note: the exemption is modified so that it no longer specifies that churches must have inculcation of religious values as their purpose and primarily employ and serve people of their same faith. Even though those specifics are no longer listed, the exemption continues to apply only to a small category of entities (Churches, Integrated Auxiliaries, and Conventions or Associations of Churches).
- · Non-profit religious organizations will have to involuntarily comply with the mandate through a series of new requirements on insurance companies and third party administrators(in the case of self-insured plans). HHS refers to this as an accommodation, and will only make it available to a nonprofit entity that “holds itself out as a religious organization.” The arrangement will work as follows:
- o Fully Insured Plans–In the case of a non-profit religious organization that indicates it opposes providing all or part of the mandated coverage, their insurance company will provide the coverage to the covered employees anyway through a “seamless process” under the justification that the coverage is actually free because it will reduce labor and delivery costs in the long run.
- o Self-Insured Plans–In the case of a self-insured plan, the third party administrator will contract with another insurance company to provide the coverage, and the insurance company will be compensated by paying less in “Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees.”
Another leading source explained to LifeNews further about the mandate revisions.
The source said, “Due to a misleading press release from HHS and other factors, some media and others have thought that HHS has now substantially expanded its “religious employer” exemption from the mandate. They note that the old four-prong test for qualifying as a “religious employer” has now been reduced to just one prongs.”
“The Departments believe that this proposal would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended in the 2012 final rules. As previously noted, when the Departments first defined religious employer, the primary goal was to exempt the group health plans of houses of worship. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) of the Code refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. By restricting the exemption primarily to group health plans established or maintained by churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship, and religious orders, the fourth prong of the current definition of religious employer would alone suffice to meet the goal.”
The pro-life source added, “So HHS dropped the other three prongs of the four-prong definition because it doesn’t need them. This one prong alone does roughly the same job.”
The changes are drawing strong condemnation from pro-life groups like Americans United for Life.
“With another phony compromise, the Obama Administration continues to insult the intelligence of the American people and trample our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights,” said AUL’s President Charmaine Yoest. “Our Freedom of Conscience, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment has been violated by Obamacare and these new regulations do not resolve the offense.”
“The phony compromise from Health and Human Services only serves to illustrate the problem with Obamacare,” said Dr. Yoest. “The Obama Administration is trying to gerrymander the regulations but continues to leave most Americans without their Constitutional freedoms. The regulation is clear that the Obama Administration’s intent is to limit religious liberty to houses of worship. Meanwhile Christian universities, for-profit businesses – like the Bible publisher Tyndale and Hobby Lobby – or individuals are still forced to subsidize Big Abortion. The Obama Administration’s implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the First Amendment Conscience rights of Americans, and that must be stopped.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
