When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said, “I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.” They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, “Surely not I, Lord?” Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” (Matthew 26:20-24)

Almost from the very beginning, Jesus was betrayed by those closest to him. What has become clear is, that over the last 75 years (if not longer), Brother Judas, Father Judas, Bishop Judas, and Cardinal Judas have continued the sin of Judas Iscariot; caused unfathomable the pain to their victims. We still hear them say, “Surely not I, Lord?”

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.” But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the other disciples said the same. (Matthew 26:34-35)

We hear those who surrounded Brother Judas, Father Judas, Bishop Judas, and Cardinal Judas say “I will never disown you.” How many times by their actions or lack of actions did they disown Him; do they still disown Him?

Today there are some 1.12 billion Roman Catholics worldwide. None of us prefect; all of us sinners. To one extent or another, the betrayers and deniers have impacted us all. It is not they to whom we turn, it is Christ Jesus, His teachings, and His promise. “I am the way and the truth and the life.” (John 14:6)

Respectfully, I would like to suggest that the Holy Father proclaim that for one year all General Intercessions/Prayer of the Faithful includes something such as: “We pray to the Lord for healing for and forgiveness from all those who have been abused by those within the Church.”

START OF TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT:

Unprinted Amendment No.___ .

Intended to Proposed by Mr. _________.

Viz:

Add at the end of the bill the following new Section:

“Sec.___ . a) Inasmuch as Sections Five and Seven of Article I of the United States Constitution mandate a certain process for the enactment of a federal law and do not allow a measure to become a law by “deeming” it passed by either House of Congress, it is the Sense of the Senate and its judgment that the House of Representatives is required by the Supreme Law of the United States, to vote directly and up or down on H.R. 3590 in order to send that measure lawfully to the President, if, and only if, it shall have been approved by a majority vote of each such House taken on an identical measure; and, more particularly, it is the Sense of the Senate that, in conformity with Article I of the Constitution, the House of Representatives, unless the measure is returned to the Senate with an Amendment by the House, must vote directly on the language sent to it by the Senate precisely as it was duly enrolled at the direction of the Senate by its Enrolling Clerk, certified as an Act of the Senate by the Secretary of the Senate, and thereupon transmitted by the Senate’s Messenger to the House Chamber while the House of Representatives was in actual Session.

b) It is the further Sense of the Senate that the exact words that the Senate caused to be enrolled on parchment and taken by messenger to the House of Representatives, constitute the sole document and the only document upon which Members of the House can lawfully cast their vote, whether Yeah or Nay, under the process expressly mandated by the United States Constitution; and it is also the Sense of the Senate and its judgment that to do otherwise by “deeming” rather than voting would void any purported enactment, deprive it of the force of law, justify disobedience to it, and cause irreparable violence and harm to our system of government and its fundamental law through fraud, deception, abuse of power, and usurpation of the civil rights of the People.

The Archdiocese of Denver, Colorado, decided not to re-enroll a child in a Catholic school in Boulder next year because the child’s parents are lesbians.

“Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment,” it said in a statement posted on its Web site. “To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.”

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, comments on the matter included the following: “But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman.”

Would the Archdiocese not enroll (or re-enroll) a child if the parents got divorced and remarried without a Church annulment? 

Archbishop Chaput also said, “Our schools are meant to be “partners in faith” with parents.  If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.  It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.”

At best the Democrats and Republicans tied at the “Summit”. But, in this case a tie goes to the Republicans. 

Democrats, aided by the liberal media, have tried to paint the Republicans as the party of “no”. But, the mostly boring summit, showed that Republicans were informed on healthcare and had reasoned ideas and approaches. One could disagree with them, but they were not just saying “no”.

Secondly, the Democrats want to build acceptance from the American people when the Democrats try to use reconciliation to force their plan on the American people.

As an aside, reconciliation is unlikely it is to succeed. Democrats just do not have the votes in the House of pass the Senate bill unchanged.

Further regarding the summit, the Republicans were not wild-eyed crazy people, they were respectful, but strong, informed, disciplined and consistent.

President Obama looked un-presidential and more like a junior committee chairman trying to give members of his party more time and more leeway to have their say.

Soon after the summit opened, Reid was more interested in confrontation than compromise. At the end of the summit, Obama was like a college professor lecturing his lesser and threatening them if they did not do what he wanted when he wanted it.

At the end of the day, Obama and the Democrats pushed “all in” that they can quickly get Obamacare or something close.

If they do not get quick passage Obama said: “That’s what elections are for”.

He’s right, that was what Massachusetts was about and the 2010 elections are likely to shape up the same way.

Low Inflation Gives Fed Room To Keep Rates Down

According to the AP: “The Federal Reserve seems likely to keep interest rates at record lows for several more months after news Friday [February 18th] that consumer prices excluding food and energy fell in January.”

This is the same mistake the Japanese made. Fed should begin slowly increasing rates so that when they need to they will have room to cut. Not raising rates takes a major tool out of their toolbox.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

The US government owns a majority stake of General Motors. GM's CEO Ed Whitacre is getting a base salary of $1.7 million. GM will pay former-CEO Frederick "Fritz" Henderson $59,090 a month beginning this week for consulting on international operations.

Bush Administration Lawyers Didn’t Commit Professional Misconduct

Bet this doesn't get as much media coverage as when the accusation was made -- Pres Obama's Justice Department found that Bush administration lawyers didn’t commit professional misconduct when they wrote memos authorizing interrogation techniques such as waterboarding for terrorism suspects.

I'm Not A Fan Of Susan Estrich, But What She Is Right On About This

“It's not a communications problem. What's gone wrong is that people see the country swimming in debt, see the jobs recovery lagging, see friends and neighbors who are not even hanging on, and they just don't know how this administration is planning to pay for a massive health care reform effort.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_susan_estrich/what_went_wrong

Why The US Constitution Has A Filibuster Provision For The Senate

Ungovernable? Nonsense.-- by Charles Krauthammer

“The Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2010/02/19/ungovernable__nonsense?page=full

Why Be Against The Death Penalty, One More Reason

I don't want to be part of a society that might be executing innocent people and too many people are found guilty and then it is later proved they did not commit the crime. -- Acting at the recommendation of a special state innocence commission — a panel of North Carolina judges ruled Wednesday that a man was wrongfully convicted of murdering a prostitute in 1991 and freed him after 16 years in prison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/us/18innocent.html

Underwear Bomber -- What Did Obama Know and When Did He Know It?

White House still can't say if Obama knew in advance on Christmas Day that underwear bomber would be Mirandized. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked on Feb 3rd and said he would find out. But yesterday [February 17th] when asked again he still hasn't been able to find out.

Constructive Ambiguity

“One, the people in the military enlisted or were commissioned with the idea that DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] would allow them to serve honorably among THEIR PEERS!”

It is unclear to me how ending DADT changes the idea that military personnel would be serving any less honorably. The emphasis on “THEIR PEERS” is also strange. Gays already serve, not opening, but thus are serving as part of the peer group. If the point is that gays are not in the peer group of the non-gay service personnel, is the only determining factor of peer group sexual orientation? Or should others, women, Catholics, Democrats, etc. be prohibited from serving as they may not be peers of some artificially conceived peer group?

“Two, having been on active duty, having open gays serve would allow the most disease-ridden group (HIV/STDs/Hep A/B/C) to interact with the most healthiest group in America.”

To enlist you must be free of contagious diseases that would likely endanger the health of other personnel.

A person, gay or straight, who tests positively for AIDS, HIV, and many other conditions (e.g. TB) is not permitted to enlist. If military personnel contract diseases such as HIV, they are allowed to serve out their enlistment, but are not allowed to re-enlist.

“What are you gonna do when a gay comes in clean and goes out with AIDS? Give him hundreds of thousands of dollars in free medical followed by 500,000 in insurance money?”

To my knowledge, not one has raised this issue with heterosexual people who come in “clean” and go out with an STD. Why is it different for gays and AIDS? What about a women who gets pregnant while in the military?

“Who is going to want to treat a battlefield would, sans gloves, when a [gay] gets wounded? Why risk getting AIDS?”

Battlefield conditions are the most horrible anyone faces, and supplies of all kinds can and usually run out. However, EMS personnel must deal with a somewhat similar issue. While far from a perfect analogy, it is insightful as to how the DOD might address the issue. Certainly, this is not an insurmountable situation, especially for the greatest military in the world.

If you were under attack and in danger of being overrun, would you care if those next to you helping to defend your position and save your life were gay or just U.S. military?

There has yet be to a significant reason presented to not allow gays to opening serve in the military. Implementation of this policy will require thought, but the time has long past for it to be done.

Are all heterosexual men sexual predators who will rape a woman given the opportunity?

Most people, I hope, would answer “No”.

Are all homosexual men sexual predators who will rape a man given the opportunity?

While people might be more unaware of homosexual men’s behavior, the answer is again “No”.

You could change the gender in all these questions and get the same answers.

Is the typical/average heterosexual man serving in the armed forces (granted at times under extreme stress) likely to rape a female member of the armed forces?

While rape in the military probably happens more than the military acknowledges, again the answer is “No”.

Is the typical/average homosexual man serving in the armed forces likely to rape a male member of the armed forces?

Short answer, “No”.

Is the typical/average heterosexual man serving in the armed forces likely to approach a female member of the armed forces hoping it leads to a relationship and perhaps consensual sex.

Yes.

So what is the problem with the typical/average homosexual man serving in the armed forces approaching a male member of the armed forces hoping it leads to a relationship and perhaps consensual sex?

First, bigotry against homosexual men.

Second, if the man approached is heterosexual, he will probably be extremely uncomfortable with the approach. Heterosexual men do not have a woman’s lifetime of experience in deflecting unwanted advances. Thus, the heterosexual man does not know how to respond. 

If a person in the military, male or female, straight or gay, forces/pushes a relationship with a male or female, straight or gay, beyond the point where the second person wishes it to go, the first person should be dealt with according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Do you have a written job description? Job descriptions are often quite long and try to cover everything your employer may desire of you.

You may be surprised at the brevity of the job description of the President of the United States (as taken from the U.S. Constitution, Article II).

Job Description -- President of the United States

• Faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States
• to the best of your Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
• be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia
• Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment
• with the Advice and Consent of the Senate:
• make Treaties,
• nominate Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States
• from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
• may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;
• receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers;
• shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,
• Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Let’s say I was making $22,000 a year and spending $35,500 a year. 

At the end of the year I would owe $13,500. 

To solve the problem, I decide to cut my spending by $100.

Think that will solve my problems?

Basically, this is what President Obama going to propose in his SOTU address.

$3,550,000,000,000 – $3.55 trillion

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6% increase over 2009)

“Discretionary” spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1% increase over 2009)

Proposed freeze does not include Mandatory spending or the following “Discretionary” spending:

$663.7 billion - Department of Defense

$52.5 billion - Department of Veterans Affairs

$42.7 billion - Department of Homeland Security

$51.7 billion - Department of State and Other International Programs

Deficit is forecast $1.35 trillion

$10 billion – annual “savings” to be proposed by Obama

Senator-elect Brown should drive his truck to DC. He should lead a convoy of pickups starting in MA; along the way other pickups could join him. Pickups should converge on DC from all over and the convoy should circle the Capitol and White House.

Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.

Every year at this time, people ask astronomers if they know “What was the star of stars, the star which lead the Wise Men to Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Jesus?” 

Long ago people though of everything that they saw in the night sky as a “star”. Thus, the planets, the “fixed” stars, meteors, comets, etc. all were “stars”. So what might have been “The Star”? 

Meteors or shooting stars are caused by pebble-sized bits of rock burning up as they race through the atmosphere some 50 miles above the Earth. Shooting stars happen so quickly that if you see one, by the time you tell your friends to look, the flash will be gone. Certainly a meteor did not send the Wise Men to Bethlehem. 

Comets have been described as dirty snowballs traveling through space. As they approach the Sun, comets give off gas and dust which forms the comet’s tail. Comets were well known at the time of Christ’s birth, but were considered omens of bad tidings and thus a comet would not send the Wise Men in search of a great king. 

For time to time a star may “explode” as a nova or supernova, and for a short time may even become visible in the daytime. But, our records show no “guest star” at the time of Christ's birth.

The fixed stars do not change from year to year, so they would not account for the search. 

The Wise Men followed the motions of the planets as these “wandering stars” moved against the background of fixed stars, for they believed that the motions of these wandering stars could foretell the future. With their knowledge of the motions of the heavens they could calculate that Jupiter and Saturn would be seen to pass each other three times and then be joined by Mars. 

Then Herod secretly called the magi and determined from them the exact time the star appeared.

But, what of Herod and his advisors, why did they not see this “star”? Most of the event would not be visible because it would happen during the day.  

But, the Wise Men with their superior knowledge of the motions of the planets knew that it was happening. They knew that this event would take place in Pisces, the Fish, a star group which for them was symbolic of the Hebrews. Thus some great event would take place in the land of the Hebrews and the Wise Men were off on their search.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.

Was this alignment of the planets really “The Star”? Astronomers do not know.

What we do know is that the star heralded Christ’s birth.

Merry Christmas