Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Academy Awards Support Sexual Perversions

From Ted Baehr, MovieGuide

Hollywood Denounces God and Applauds Pedophilia at the Oscars

The Academy Awards showed its support for sexual perversions last night at its annual Oscar ceremony.

And, the Academy wrongly painted the Entertainment Industry as a bunch of Commie rats, as it applauded Communist sympathizer Sean Penn’s gleeful greeting after winning an award for portraying an assassinated homosexual leader, “You Commie, homo-loving sons of guns!”

The Oscar audience applauded madly when Penn, who won Best Actor for his portrayal of murdered homosexual activist Harvey Milk in the movie MILK, angrily chastised voters in California, including 70% of black voters, for having the gall in last November’s elections to support the real definition of marriage.

In a mean spirited curse, Penn said, “I think it's a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect on their great shame, and their shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that support. We've got to have equal rights for everyone.”

In the past, Penn has also expressed support for Hugo Chavez, the Neo-Marxist dictator of Venezuela, and Communist dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba.

The audience also clapped when the winning screenwriter for MILK, Dustin Lance Black, proclaimed his bigotry when he commented, "If Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he would want me to say to all the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told they are less than by the churches, by the government, by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value, and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights, federally, across this great nation of ours. Thank you, God, for Harvey Milk!"

At the beginning of the show, host Hugh Jackman described the message of MILK as, “It’s okay to be gay.”

Of course, Jesus Christ believes otherwise.

“Haven't you read,” he says in Matthew 19:4-6, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So, they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not tear apart.”

The movie industry also gave an Oscar to Kate Winslet for playing an illiterate escaped Nazi war criminal and pedophile that repeatedly seduces a 15-year-old boy.

Even though she played a pedophile, Hollywood decided that Kate Winslet finally deserved to get an Oscar for her performance in THE READER.

Earlier in the evening, actress Marisa Tomei, who plays a stripper in THE WRESTLER, was applauded for showing that “a stripper doesn’t have to lose her dignity when taking off her clothes.”

The attack on biblical values continued as Meryl Streep was praised for portraying a strict Catholic nun who struggles with herself and the fact that modern times are passing her by.

Later in the telecast, atheist Bill Maher was given a platform to rail against religion when he said, “Someday we’ll have to confront the notion that our silly gods cost the world too greatly.”

Maher and Penn’s statements notwithstanding, statistics show that movies with very strong Christian worldviews like PRINCE CASPIAN and FIREPROOF averaged $43.5 million at the box office while movies with very strong atheist or anti-Christian worldviews like Maher’s RELIGULOUS averaged only $11.2 million and movies with very strong pro-homosexual content like MILK averaged even worse, only $6.3 million.

In fact, the more homosexual content a movie had, the less it earned at the box office, according to MOVIEGUIDE®’s Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry, which examined the Top 250 English-language movies at the box office:

Content Count B.O. Sum B.O. Avg.
Ho 41 $1,481,700,314 $36,139,032
HoHo 18 $497,445,643 $27,635,869
HoHoHo 9 $56,439,305 $6,271,034

“Oscar obsessed liberals are out of touch with the American people,” MOVIEGUIDE® Publisher Dr. Ted Baehr said. “They attacked the faith and values of the 80% of Christians who worship Jesus Christ. Most of these people go to church every week and donate billions of dollars to churches and other religious groups.”

Dr. Baehr said he also found it “bizarre” that the Oscars ignored such box office hits as THE DARK KNIGHT, IRON MAN and Clint Eastwood’s GRAN TORINO.

“Apparently, these movies were too conservative for Hollywood’s celebrity elite.”


To help you pick the good from the bad, please visit us daily at www.movieguide.org.

Note: For more information, or to arrange an interview with Dr. Ted Baehr, founder of CFTVC and author of NARNIA BECKONS: C.S. LEWIS'S THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE AND BEYOND, SO YOU WANT TO BE IN PICTURES, THE MEDIA-WISE FAMILY, WHAT CAN WE WATCH TONIGHT?, and many other books, please call 1-800-577-6684.

MOVIEGUIDE® is a Good News Communications publication -- 2510-G Las Posas Road, #502, Camarillo, CA 93010, (805) 383-2000


Why are American kids being drawn into primitive practices and weird sexuality? Find out in Linda Harvey's book,"NOT MY CHILD: Contemporary Paganism and the New Spirituality."

Order it from AMG Publishers today at


Get your children out of the public schools NOW, or start today fighting anti-Christian, pro-homosexual teaching!

For the latest news about the homosexual agenda in our schools, go to our companion web site,


Please help support our work!

Mission America
PO Box 21836
Columbus, OH 43221

Mail list service for Mission America provided by afo.net and
totalnetguard.com filtering service, the Internet service that protects your family on the internet.

Mission America

Monday, February 23, 2009

Obama's Pornography Attorney

February 14, 2009

Judith Reisman: beware of David Ogden

By Matt C. Abbott


Long-time pornography foe Dr. Judith A. Reisman sounds the alarm regarding David W. Ogden, President Obama's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, in the following commentary.

Government Child Protectors, Attorneys, and Crime Prevention Agents Endorse Big Pornography Advocate for United States Deputy Attorney General

by Judith Reisman

'On November 6, 2008, President-elect Obama tapped Big Pornography attorney David Ogden to establish his new U.S. Justice Department team with nary a word of warning from the conservative legal watch.

'On January 5, 2009, President Obama nominated Ogden for U.S. Justice Department Deputy Attorney General. His nomination hearing was scheduled for February 5.

'On January 21, the Senate Judiciary Committee began receiving formal 'Letters Received in Connection with the Nomination' (some naming multiple persons and organizations). All 51 endorsed Ogden.

'On or about February 2, the conservative legal watch alerted pro-family, anti-pornography activists of Ogden's record and hearing scheduled for a few days later.

'What was that record? With Ogden's confirmation challenged, Edward Whelan, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote, 'David Ogden has advocated the interests of the porn industry [in] a child-pornography case, Knox v. United States.' When Knox appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, President Clinton's Solicitor General, Drew Days, refused to defend his conviction. Congress condemned Days by a Senate vote of 100-0 vote and a House vote of 425-3. Congress then hired a private legal firm to support Knox's conviction.
'The Senate, says Whelan, 'is now being asked to confirm as Deputy Attorney General someone who advocated,' in Knox, the drastic reduction in child-pornography laws 'that the Senate unanimously repudiated 16 years ago.' Jan LaRue, senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, adds that Ogden has a 'track record on behalf of those who've deluged America with pornography and against the federal laws he would be sworn to enforce.'

'Yet not one letter below included a single word about Ogden's long and profitable tenure in the service of Big Pornography. Is it possible that these guardians of the law and of children's safety were just ignorant about Mr. Ogden's ties? As of now, not one has removed his or her support.

'The blue-ribbon list of endorsers includes Thomas Miller, Iowa Attorney General; Douglas Gansler, Maryland Attorney General; Jo Ann Harris, former Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division; Larry Thompson, former Deputy Attorney General; Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick; and — hold on for this — The National Women's Law Center and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)!

'It has been my Washington experience that Ogden's Big Pornography service would be known to many, if not most, of his endorsers. And, as I said, all of the letters remain in place even after the much belated reports of Ogden as a veteran pornography advocate.

'The Ogden fiasco brings to mind my August 15, 1983 naming to the FBI/DOJ 'Missing Children, Serial Murder Task Force,' a nascent NCMEC. Our mission was to study 'The effect that pornography and sexology may have upon societal violence in general and juvenile exploitation and abuse in particular.' Our FBI/DOJ Task Force of 23 criminal justice experts agreed on the need to collect evidence of 'pornography and its relationship/linkage to child abuse, sexual exploitation, delinquency, and societal violence.'

'This FBI/DOJ/OJJDP Task Force was spiked from above before we got out of the starting gate. Neither the NCMEC, the FBI nor law enforcement collects on-site data on pornography's 'relationship/linkage to child abuse, sexual exploitation, delinquency, and social violence.' Big Pornography has powerful friends in the seats of power.

Note the Letters Received in Connection with the Nomination below:

February 6, 2009 — National Congress of American Indians

February 4, 2009 — Todd Zubler, WilmerHale

February 4, 2009 — Todd R. Steggerda, WilmerHale

February 4, 2009 — Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, State of Iowa

February 4, 2009 — Robert F. Hoyt

February 3, 2009 — Leadership Conference on Civil Rights — [American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), Americans for Democratic Action, Asian American Justice Center, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Black Leadership Forum, Inc., Campaign for America's Future, Human Rights Campaign, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Abortion Federation, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Congress of American Indians, National Health Law Program, National Partnership, National Senior Citizens Law Center, People for the American Way, The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law]

February 2, 2009 — Reginald J. Brown, WilmerHale

January 27, 2009 — National District Attorneys Association

January 27, 2009 — Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, State of Maryland

January 27, 2009 — Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)

January 26, 2009 — National Sheriff's Association

January 26, 2009 — Christine Gregoire, Governor, State of Washington

January 26, 2009 — Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association

January 26, 2009 — Beth S. Brinkmann, Morrison Foerster; former Assistant to the Solicitor General

January 25, 2009 — Major Cities Chiefs Association

January 25, 2009 — Jo Ann Harris, Attorney At Law; former Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

January 23, 2009 — Larry Thompson, former Deputy Attorney General

January 23, 2009 — Deval Patrick, Governor, State of Massachusetts

January 23, 2009 — National Women's Law Center

January 23, 2009 — National Narcotic Officers' Association Coalition

January 23, 2009 — Peter Keisler, Sidley Austin LLP, former Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; former Acting Attorney General

January 23, 2009 — Michael E. Horowitz, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP; Commissioner, U.S. Sentencing Commission

January 23, 2009 — Jamie S. Gorelick, WilmerHale, former Deputy Attorney General

January 23, 2009 — Manus Cooney

January 23, 2009 — Paul T. Cappuccio, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, TimeWarner; former Associate Deputy Attorney General

January 23, 2009 — Boys and Girls Clubs of America

January 23, 2009 — Anti-Defamation League

January 23, 2009 — H. Thomas Wells, Jr., Maynard Cooper & Gale PC

January 22, 2009 — James Robinson, Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft LLP; former Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division

January 22, 2009 — Daniel Price, former Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs

January 22, 2009 — Partnership for a Drug-Free America

January 22, 2009 — Police Executive Research Forum

January 22, 2009 — National Association of Police Organizations, Inc.

January 22, 2009 — Daniel Levin, White & Case; former Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel; former Assistant U.S. Attorney

January 22, 2009 — Bill Lann Lee, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C.; former Assistant Attorney General

January 22, 2009 — Judge Advocates General [MG Michael Nardotti, USA (Ret.); MG Kenneth Gray, USA (Ret.); RADM Harold Grant, JAGC, USN (Ret.); Maj Gen Nolan Sklute, USAF (Ret.); Maj Gen Andrew Egeland, USAF (Ret.); BGen Michael Wholley, USMC (Ret.); MG Walter Huffman, USA (Ret.); RADM John Hutson, JAGC, USN (Ret.); BGen Joseph Composto, USMC (Ret.); RADM Donald Guter, JAGC, USN (Ret.); RADM Thomas Connelly, JAGC, USN (Ret.); RADM Steven Horton, JAGC, USN (Ret.)]

January 22, 2009 — Kenneth Geller, Mayer Brown LLP, former Deputy Solicitor General

January 22, 2009 — Stuart M. Gerson, former Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division

January 22, 2009 — Fraternal Order of Police

January 22, 2009 — John B. Bellinger, III

January 22, 2009 — American Psychological Association

January 21, 2009 — Seth Waxman, WilmerHale; former Solicitor General

January 21, 2009 — Daniel E. Troy, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, GlaxoSmithKline

January 21, 2009 — Richard Taranto, Farr & Taranto; former Assistant to the Solicitor General

January 21, 2009 — Carter S. Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP; former Assistant to the Solicitor General

January 21, 2009 — National Center for Victims of Crime

January 21, 2009 — National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

January 21, 2009 — Carolyn Lamm, White and Case

January 21, 2009 — David C. Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.; former Assistant to the Solicitor General

January 21, 2009 — Rachel L. Brand, WilmerHale

January 21, 2009 — Jeffrey M. Blum, Attorney at Law

'Some parting questions: Was President Obama ever warned about Ogden's Big Pornography ties? Were opposing letters from pro-family, anti-pornography law watchdogs purged from above, or never sent? Is the Ogden fiasco linked to the foiling of our FBI/DOJ plan to examine pornography's role in our 'Missing Children, Serial Murder Task Force' in 1983?'

Related commentary:
"Porn Attorney: #2 at Justice Department?"
© Matt C. Abbott


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.

(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Obama's Overreach on Abortion Lends Hope to Pro-Lifers

SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser is available for comment on commentary published in Human Events
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 /Christian Newswire/ -- Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser published a commentary in this week's Human Events that examines how the extreme actions of the Obama administration may be the tipping point for the pro-life movement. Selected excerpts follow:

"Successful human and civil rights movements share at least one thing in common: someone on the other side overreached. Some individual or institution took a step in the wrong direction that public opinion could not sustain. This is true for the abolitionist and women's suffrage movements. And it appears that it will soon be true for the pro-life movement."

"It is one thing to take a 'pro-choice' position on an issue, allowing others to engage in activity even if one is personally opposed. It is quite another to be forced to facilitate activity one opposes in conscience. Actions such as those can galvanize public opinion and result in the changes the public - not the activists - really want."

"President Obama may very well be supplying an 'overreach' moment for the right to life movement by attempting to require taxpayers to fully fund abortions in federal programs and the domestic and international abortion industries themselves. This 'abortion industry bailout' during a time of acute economic crisis is a dramatic overreach that far outstrips citizens' public opinion." "Obama's overreach gives pro-life human rights advocates in the mold of Susan B. Anthony reason to hope. A turning point for protecting the unborn could well be on the horizon."

Full text of the piece is available on the SBA List website, www.sba-list.org.

SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser is available to discuss the abortion bailout, pro-woman, pro-life leadership in politics, and the abortion policy changes of the Obama Administration. For more information or to schedule an interview, please contact Joy Yearout at (703) 380-6674 or by email at jyearout@sba-list.org.

The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 152,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.

Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Joy Yearout, 703-380-6674, jyearout@sba-list.org

Susan B. Anthony List

Forward this press release to another reporter or news producer

This email was sent to mrtnzfred@aol.com by newsdesk@christiannewswire.com.
Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.

Christian Communication Network | 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW | Washington | DC | 20006

Obama is W. Bush II on the Economy?

"[T]he consolidation of power.

That's the way I interpret the so-called "economic stimulus" legislation approved by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by President Obama.

There is no way it will stimulate the economy. It will have the opposite effect – lengthening and deepening the economic crisis in which America finds itself.

Does anyone truly believe we're in this mess because the U.S. government didn't spend enough recently? Of course not. Congress and President Bush spent money like drunken sailors. They caused this calamity because of their irresponsibility and their disregard for the Constitution."


Obama's goal? Directed chaos

Posted: February 23, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

When we think of the word "chaos," normally we associate it with spontaneous acts of malcontents rebelling without a cause.

But most of the chaos in the world today is what I call "directed chaos" – usually government-directed and with one single-minded purpose: the consolidation of power.

That's the way I interpret the so-called "economic stimulus" legislation approved by the Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by President Obama.

There is no way it will stimulate the economy. It will have the opposite effect – lengthening and deepening the economic crisis in which America finds itself.

Does anyone truly believe we're in this mess because the U.S. government didn't spend enough recently? Of course not. Congress and President Bush spent money like drunken sailors. They caused this calamity because of their irresponsibility and their disregard for the Constitution. Can the cure be possibly more of the same? I don't think so.

But take a look at how the money will be spent, for evidence of the "cure" is actually worse than the disease.

Of the $800 billion in the so-called "stimulus" bill, only $90 billion will actually go toward things like building highways, upgrading the electrical power grid or meaningful business tax cuts. Far more, however, will be used to revive welfare as we used to know it. Some $264 billion will be directed to encouraging states to sign up more people on welfare.

But it gets worse. This welfare is worse than the old one that everyone – Democrats and Republicans alike – agreed to dismantle in the 1990s.

It's called the "Make Work Pay" program, and it includes $23 billion per year to provide up to $500 cash to low-income adults who pay no taxes. The program will mark the first time the federal government will hand out significant cash to able-bodied adults without dependent children!

Does that make sense to you?

Probably not.

(Column continues below)

But it has been thought out. I want you to know that. This program, along with the whole of the so-called "stimulus" bill, has been considered carefully. No member of Congress may have read the bill. But that bill was written by someone. The programs it creates have been in the works for years. Money is being handed out to people who helped get Obama and the Democrats elected. Groups like ACORN, the shock troops and brown shirts of their movement, are being paid off with billions of dollars.

It has all been planned. And the goal is not to help the economy. The goal is to achieve chaos, because chaos leads to more government control – and that's what Obama and the Democratic Congress want more than anything.

They don't believe they should be bothered with elections or dissent or any of the nuisances of a free society. They believe they deserve perpetual power, because they are part of the enlightened elite.

They know socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried. But they also believe they can do better. They can make it work, because they are smarter than the guys who have bungled it in the past.

In the meantime, prepare for chaos.

Prepare for harder times than you have seen in your lifetime.

Prepare for more debt.

Prepare for more redistribution of wealth, more unfairness and inequity.

Prepare for one bailout after another.

Prepare for more "emergency" legislation like the so-called "stimulus" bill.

Prepare for unilateral executive action through presidential decision directives.

Prepare for attacks on the free press and free speech.

This is where we are inevitably going with the "change" promises by Obama.

You're going to get change all right.

The government is going to show you how bad it can get, so you will accept its most draconian solutions.

You haven't seen anything yet.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Discounting Family Values


By Allan Carlson

Traditional conservatives had grand hopes as the George W. Bush team rode into Washington. Unlike his father (alas, “Poppy” was puzzled by the little concerns of Middle Americans), the new president seemed able to speak their language without wincing and to understand their fears of moral and social decay. During his campaign, the younger Bush had reached out to Washington’s pro-family leadership, organized as the Arlington Group, and convinced them that they finally had a real seat at the table.

Eight years later, they know their place. On matters tangential to political life, where little was at risk, the Bush White House usually delivered. But when the interests of normal American families collided with military ambitions in the Middle East or with the claims of the Fortune 500, social conservatives were dismissed—sometimes with contempt.

Early actions held promise. At the cabinet level, pro-family leaders applauded Bush’s choices of John Ashcroft as attorney general and Tommy Thompson to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Ashcroft had a solid pro-life and pro-family voting record during his Senate years. Wisconsin governor Thompson won praise for his welfare reforms, which cut sharply back on the welfare subsidies for unwed mothers and tried to encourage marriage.

The new administration also placed good people in important second-level posts. Bush named Dr. Wade Horn to the key position of HHS’s assistant secretary for children and families, the federal agency most deeply engaged in family policy. As a veteran of the elder Bush’s administration, Horn had emerged as a reliable conservative through service on the National Commission on Children and, during the Clinton years, as president of the National Fatherhood Initiative. Bush also named former Maryland legislator Ellen Sauerbrey as U.S. delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, where she took on the über-feminists swarming through the UN’s Secretariat.

One personnel disappointment, which carried an ominous message, came at the Pentagon. Retiring Indiana senator Dan Coats, who had a solid pro-family voting record and a keen grasp of social issues, was a finalist for the secretary of defense post. During an interview, though, he reported that he would seek to reverse Clinton-era policies that had opened numerous near-combat military specialties to women. This reportedly struck a nerve in Bush’s inner circle. They opted instead for Don Rumsfeld, who cast the role of women in the military as a mere “management” issue.

All the same, the first Bush term delivered on a number of policy fronts. The 2001 tax cut included an increase in the relatively new Child Tax Credit to $1,000 per child, as had been recommended by the National Commission on Children, a boon to larger families. The administration successfully implemented another commission recommendation: increased funding for abstinence-education initiatives, toward parity with the Title X birth-control program. Over at HHS, they launched promising fatherhood and marriage initiatives intended to strengthen traditional families. The administration created a high-profile President’s Council on Bioethics. Headed by the estimable Leon Kass, the council’s products included an unusual (and unusually good) volume on the dignity of life, Being Human.

On the international front, the Bush administration effectively shut down family policymaking at the United Nations. During the Clinton years, much mischief had occurred at international sessions in Cairo, Beijing, Istanbul, and Copenhagen. First Lady Hillary Clinton, as she repeatedly noted during her presidential run this year, actually led the American delegation to the Beijing session on women’s rights, where the real issues were legalizing abortion, expanding state daycare, and normalizing lesbianism. The Clintons were also eager to win ratification of sweeping UN treaties regarding the rights of women and children, both of which would involve a surrender of American legal sovereignty.

The Bush team at the UN brought all this to a screeching halt. American obstructionism drove internationalist apparatchiks into sullen rages; they turned from grand initiatives toward less dangerous troublemaking at the technical level.

Domestically, as homosexual groups pressed for same-sex marriage, President Bush reiterated his support for the Defense of Marriage Act. When pro-family groups rallied around a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the president gave it his blessing.

Even before the end of his first term, however, there were signs of trouble. Trying to find a middle way that would placate social liberals, the White House backed federal funding for certain forms of stem-cell research. Most pro-life and pro-family groups favored a total ban. Meanwhile, HHS projects to promote marriage and fatherhood were moving instead toward a punishing noncustodial fathers, pleasing feminists, and creating perverse incentives for divorce.

After “values voters” won credit for re-electing Bush in 2004, pro-family leaders made judges their top priority. Here again, the president stumbled, initially nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, though his subsequent choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito won hosannas from social conservatives.

Pro-family leaders might have accomplished more had they adopted a more strategic approach. In 2005, however, they spent vast amounts of political capital in a frenzied effort to save Terri Schiavo. Special congressional late-night sessions, emergency bills, the attempted federalization of a state issue, and midnight presidential signatures—any special interest, even one riding high, can only call on these once per election cycle. Not only did the effort to save Schiavo fail, but the oddities of the campaign marked the beginning of the end for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s presidential aspirations. The controversy probably contributed to the fall of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and may have been a factor in the Republicans losing Congress in 2006. All the same, whatever the broader wisdom, Bush did here what pro-family groups in Washington asked him to do.

At another level, though, the Bush team sacrificed the prospect of greater pro-family initiatives—like so much else—to the war in Iraq. Most disturbingly, the Defense Department relentlessly manipulated, and at times simply ignored, laws that limited exposure of women to combat. Desperate to fill its ranks, the Army ignored the lessons of all human history and put women—including young mothers—at risk, a shameful blot on the American record. Hundreds have been killed and many more severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands have spent months, if not years, separated from their families.

The administration’s deliberate twisting of gender roles was on gruesome display in the case of Jessica Lynch, in which Pentagon propagandists blatantly lied about her capture in the early days of the Iraq War, turning a frightened victim of Iraqi sexual abuse into a female version of Sergeant York. Private Lynndie England’s infamous exploits in the Abu Ghraib prison were another sign of the Pentagon’s direct complicity in the feminist-inspired degradation of American women.

In pursuit of its military agenda, the Bush administration achieved another landmark of gender-role engineering. Its deployment of women into combat made sure, given prior court decisions, that if the nation must someday return to a draft, the daughters of American families will join their brothers in involuntary military service.

The Bush White House also held family tax relief hostage to other agendas. The Child Tax Credit is the one component of the 2001 Bush tax cut that has enjoyed strong support on the Democratic side, yet it is scheduled to expire in 2010. On any given day, a strong congressional majority could have been won for making this provision permanent, yet the White House insisted on keeping it tied to tax breaks for Big Business. The consequence? American families lost once again.

The Bush administration also refused to embrace a broader package of pro-family economic initiatives. The proposed Parents’ Tax Relief Act, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Lee Terry, would make the Child Tax Credit permanent and indexed to inflation, double the personal income tax exemption for children, give parents at home a tax benefit equal to that given to daycare users, encourage home-based businesses, and treat full-time parenting as real work relative to Social Security credits. The bill has enjoyed broad support from pro-family groups, small business associations, and home-based entrepreneurs. But the Bush domestic policy team turned up its collective nose, insisting that any new tax relief should go to corporate America, not parents and children or even family businesses.

On family questions, then, the Bush legacy is mixed. Initial personnel decisions, social policy at the UN, the selection of judges, and early policy initiatives at HHS draw high marks. But whenever natural family values went up against the war in Iraq, the manpower needs of the Pentagon, corporate interests, or even political expediency, there was no contest: families were ignored.

Allan Carlson is president of The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society in Rockford, Illinois and international secretary of the World Congress of Families. His books include Conjugal America: On the Public Purposes of Marriage (Transaction).

Ron Paul: How to Fix the Economy


Financial fix? Abolish the Fed, says congressman
Paul: Constitution requires coin based on gold, silver

Posted: February 21, 2009
8:35 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul

In just recent weeks, the federal government has designated billions of tax dollars for bank bailouts, including vast quantities to quasi-government agencies that helped create the economic crisis; billions more for automakers, and billions more for homeowners who default on their loans, so where will it end? Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas says he has at least part of the answer: abolish the Federal Reserve.

The congressman, a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, once again has introduced a bill that would get rid of the private organization that sets interest rates and establishes monetary priorities.

"Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy," Paul said in a statement at the time the proposal was introduced.

"The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency," Paul said. "The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy."

You've never needed to understand money like you need to understand it now! "Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free" unravels the deception of the Federal Reserve and presents a crystal clear picture of the financial abyss towards which we are heading.

The Texas lawmaker said the constitutional mandate to Congress actually provides only for currency "backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold."

"Abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold," he said.

(Story continues below)

Paul said every problem in the economy, "from the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the '70s, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble," can be traced to Federal Reserve policy.

Paul's opinions on the Fed are available in a video linked here and embedded here:

Paul's plan calls for the director of the Office of Management and Budget to "liquidate" Fed assets "in an orderly manner so as to achieve as expeditious a liquidation as may be practical while maximizing the return to the Treasury."

Columnist and commentator Chuck Baldwin believes it's about time.

"'We've seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,' Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor. 'Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?'" he wrote.

"Senator Dorgan is exactly right. No one oversees the Fed. The Fed is held accountable to absolutely nobody. But Senator Dorgan (as with everyone else in Congress) has no one to blame but himself. Ever since the Marxist, E. Mandell House, convinced President Woodrow Wilson to create the Federal Reserve in 1913, the Congress of the United States has had virtually nothing to do with the way our fiscal policies are managed. The Fed (which is not even a government agency, but rather a private corporation consisting of mostly foreign bankers) dictates America's financial policies," Baldwin said.

Baldwin cites the U.S. Constitution itself. In Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5, it states Congress has the authority to "coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures."

"Only the elected Congress, not some private foreign (or even domestic) banking interest, has the power to make monetary policy," he said, and "paper money – known as the Federal Reserve Notes – is not even legal tender."

The problem Paul's plan confronts is simple, he wrote.

"No cosponsors. That's right. No cosponsors," he said.

"Until the American people demand that their elected members of Congress live up to their duties and responsibilities under the Constitution, they will continue to have their pockets picked clean by these corrupt banksters in New York City (and London) and their contemptible facilitators in Washington, D.C.," Baldwin wrote.

Paul's spokeswoman, Rachel Mills, told WND the congressman has strong feelings about the issue.

"The inflationary policies of the Fed are insidious," she told WND. "It's a hidden tax on the poor."

She confirmed the idea has been getting more attention recently, because "people are becoming really curious about the roots of our problems."

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke this week said "policymakers" have "pulled out all the stops – cutting the federal funds rate … and establishing a series of lending programs designed to add liquidity into credit constrained markets."

He also committed to more "transparency," by introducing a new website for Fed information and new communications efforts.

Paul was unimpressed.

"While I applaud any effort towards greater Federal Reserve transparency, Chairman Bernanke's latest effort contains more window dressing than substance," he said.

Getting information from the Fed won't help, he said, "as this data is often inaccurate.

"If the Fed could not be trusted to foresee the present economic downturn, despite the myriad of market commentators predicting this, why should the current Fed data and predictions be any more trusted?" Paul asked. "Furthermore, these new initiatives only divert focus from the real areas where transparency is needed. The Fed's agreements with foreign central banks and international finance institutions need to be audited, as do the source and destination of funds provided through the Fed's emergency funding facilities."

At the CitizenEconomists.com site, J.D. Seagraves noted his organization's poll showed a "sarcastic and/or deranged 5 percent of respondents" believe the Fed's performance in the current economy is excellent.

One in four in that poll believe, "We should get rid of them."

"Support for abolishing the Federal Reserve System is mounting every day," the report said. "The fact that people are beginning to wake up to the problems caused by the Federal Reserve System is a hopeful sign. The only question is: is it too late? Can the dollar be saved by the political action of the president and the Congress, or must we wait for the entire global financial system to completely melt down so we can start over?"

Columnist Jacob Hornberger last year noted that while Paul's abolition plan is considered "wacky" by some, at least two Nobel Prize-winning economists have agreed.

Economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek called for the abolition of the Fed during their careers, Hornberger notes.

"While Friedman spent much of his life advocating externally imposed constraints on the Fed's power to expand the money supply, his first wish was to have the Fed abolished, as he pointed out in a 1995 Reason magazine interview. In his book, 'Denationalization of Money: An Analysis of the Theory and Practice of Concurrent Currencies,' Hayek advocated a free-market monetary system of competing currencies," said Hornberger.

"Most Americans probably still believe that the Great Depression was caused by 'the failure of the free-enterprise system.' It is a false belief. The truth is that the worst economic disaster in American history was caused by the Federal Reserve. Give current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke credit for publicly acknowledging that fact in a speech delivered in 2002 commemorating Friedman's 90th birthday," Hornberger said.

WND recently reported that under the fiscal policies of the Fed, the total obligations of the United States have reached $65.5 trillion – exceeding the gross domestic product of the world.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Stealth Provision in Stimulus Threatens Liberties



Obama outright larceny

By David Limbaugh

February 20, 2009

It is ironic to the point of absurdity that leftists could ever complain about conservatives threatening their liberties. Now back in power, they're in a full sprint to grab power and reduce our liberties.

Of course, we always knew the left's spurious charges against President Bush were not just rank partisanship but also classic projection – accusing him of precisely the type of tactics they would employ if they were in power. And now they are – big-time.

Let's consider just a few examples.

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, at the personal expense of incurring the fury of such liberal mouth foamers as MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, has helped expose hidden health care provisions in President Obama's stimulus nightmare that "will affect 'every individual in the United States.'"

The bill creates a new bureaucracy, the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, which "will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective." Note: not what your doctor deems appropriate, but what the federal government does. Doctors and hospitals will face penalties if they fail to kowtow to this fiat requiring uniformity. This new bureaucracy will receive greater funding than "the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force combined."

Worse, the bill will result in the rationing of care for the elderly. But that's OK because Big Brother has determined that individuals will benefit in their younger years and will have to sacrifice later. I'm not making this up. This is one of the rationales defenders of these innovations are serving up.

Much of the impetus for these health care changes came from disgraced former Sen. Tom Daschle, who would be head of Health and Human Services right now but for his little tax issue. McCaughey shares revealing gems from Daschle's 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis."

Among them are his opinions that doctors must give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners" and that seniors will have to learn to deal with – rather than receive treatment for – conditions that arise from their age.

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of this particularly noxious stealth provision of the stimulus scheme is not what's in it, but how it – and other such free market-destroying provisions – were rushed through under deliberate cover of darkness. McCaughey attributes this strategy to Daschle, as well.

A year ago, McCaughey tells us, Daschle warned that the next president should not make the same mistake the Clintons made with Hillary Care, which was to allow debate. Daschle wrote: "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it. The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."

So much for "liberal" democracy. So much for transparency. So much for a new era of hope and change.
If Obama's plot to micromanage health care from on high doesn't move you, how about the abolition of welfare reform provisions imbedded in the bill? Never mind that welfare reform has been such a smashing success that even Bill Clinton tries to take credit for it despite his twice-frustrated efforts to block it.

What's important is not whether it has worked, but whether it satisfies Obama's vision for expanding the welfare state.

But there's one outrage that trumps these and others: Obama's mind-blowingly socialistic proposal to donate $75 billion to delinquent mortgage debtors to reward their behavior and encourage more of the same type of decisions and practices that landed us in this mess in the first place.

But so what? All will be well because once again, Obama – not the infinitely superior wisdom of the market – will pick the financial winners and losers single-handedly.

This would be egregious enough if the federal government had at its disposal – or could create out of thin air – the astronomical number of dollars necessary to effectuate these abominable transfer payments. But the government is beyond broke.

This means that Obama has to get the money from the assets and income of Americans who have it or earn it and are blameless in having created this quagmire. This is outright larceny – nothing less. And larceny wrapped in a package of false compassion is nonetheless larceny – and monstrously immoral.
And you thought Obama only wanted to place a ceiling on the income of those evil corporate executives. Think again. He means to punish all achievers and redistribute this nation's assets in a manner that he, in his glorious beneficence, deems more equitable.

Obama liberals, in their incalculable arrogance, believe they are smart enough to defy everything we know about human nature, economics and history by insisting on separating financial efforts from rewards and pretending this can bring prosperity.

Buckle up; they're just getting warmed up.

Stimulus of Big Brother

Obama Gives What the Doctor Did Not Order
February 20, 2009 by Phyllis Schlafly
Barack Obama forced a bitter pill down the throats of Americans which the doctor did not order and patients do not want. Obama snuck into the stimulus bill a new system for rationing medical care, and he got Congress to ram it through the House and Senate without reading it.
Maybe Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi thought no one would notice what they slipped into H.R.1 since rationing medical care has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. But the former New York lieutenant governor, Betsy McCaughey, sounded the alarm in her Bloomberg.com article aptly entitled "Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan."

She described how stealth provisions provide massive new funding of billions of dollars to an Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to monitor treatments and decide which are cost-effective and which will be permitted or denied. Currently, patients make that decision without government interference as long as the care is safe and effective.

Congress thus legislated a fundamental shift away from the "safe and effective" standard and replaced it with what a bureaucrat thinks is cost-effective or has "clinical effectiveness." Americans are waking up from their political anesthesia to realize that Obama's "change" really means government control over access to medical treatments for our illnesses.

Liberals love to control and ration as much as they love to tax and spend. Al Gore has spent nearly a decade spewing the nonsense of "global warming," which is a device for government to control and ration energy.

Team Obama may have overplayed its hand in bringing control-and-ration to medical care. The news has spread like wildfire on the internet and talk radio, and nonpolitical patients in doctors' waiting rooms can be heard talking about it.

The United States is different from Canada and England in an essential respect: here a patient can get a diagnosis and life-saving treatment within days, if not hours. Ted Kennedy (age 76) received immediate surgery for his otherwise inoperable brain cancer, a use of scarce medical resources that rationing would not allow for an ordinary patient.

American patients who have cancer or other life-threatening problems need and get prompt care, and we don't want that to "change." In Canada, England and elsewhere, patients are deemed by the government to be unworthy of treatment due to age or severity of illness, and they die while sitting on waiting lists for rationed care.

There is more funding for this new Big Brother bureaucracy in the stimulus bill than for all the armed forces combined. Wasteful pork includes billions to pay for the U.S. Census (which Team Obama is already planning to manipulate), and silly carbon-capture demonstrations (to appease the global warming lobby).

Meanwhile, the stimulus bill lays the foundation for new federal surveillance over electronic medical records, with an online medical record for each and every American. The bill establishes a massive new "federal coordinating council for comparative clinical effectiveness research" to devise ways to ration care based on the bureaucrats' review of patient data.

There can be no patient privacy in a national database of medical records because government, insurers, employers, ex-spouses and hackers will find ways to access it. Doctors will spend more time surfing the internet and typing in data than listening to patients, and of course there will be inevitable computer mistakes.

The declining American Medical Association (AMA), which is increasingly a shill for leftwing advocacy, tried to downplay the outrage of giving a government bureaucracy access to everyone's medical records and punishing doctors who don't treat as the government wants. But there is no denying the harm of this new system that facilitates government oversight of an electronic database and gives bureaucrats (who never went to medical school) the power to punish doctors who provide "too much" care.

Doctors who resist the government's guidelines will be controlled by slashing their fees. Doctors will lose their autonomy, just as Tom Daschle sought, and some patients will be left with nowhere to turn for their illnesses.

Our medical system has long been the envy of the world. That's why foreigners come to the United States for our superb medical care, spending more than a billion dollars a year here.

A true stimulus bill would seek to multiply that revenue by encouraging more private enterprise in medicine rather than installing a new bureaucracy to build and oversee electronic medical records, control doctors' decisions, and ration care.

In 1993, Hillary and Bill Clinton tried with all their might to impose a government takeover of all health care, and the 1994 midterm elections repudiated their efforts. The midterm elections of 2010 could be just what the doctor ordered.

Further reading:

"The Doctor Will See All of You Now"

Read this column online.
Watch GOP Leader John Boehner throws down the 1,071-page bill in disgust because not one Member of Congress has read it.

Join Eagle Forum and get The Phyllis Schlafly Report delivered to your door every month: Annual subscription $20.
Best bargain in print! Easy to distribute to alert your friends.

Make a donation to Eagle Forum.

Eagle Forum
PO Box 618
Alton, IL 62002

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Could It Come to This?


Those of you who know me personally know that I'm not an apocalyptic type of guy. I don't put stock in conspiracy theories. I don't see black helicopters anywhere, and I don't follow the “prophecy” prognosticators.

I do, however, follow what's being discussed and forecast in the mainstream media, and even though many still blythely assume that, at least as far as the economy goes, things have gotten as bad as they're going to get and the economy will soon be on the upswing, I am not so sure. In fact, when I listen to people like economist Peter Schiff, I find myself growing pessemistic about the likelihood of a rebound anytime soon and how things could get much worse rather quickly.

So, when balanced, trusted sources who happen to be my friends and work in the purely secular financial world send me articles like this, and this, and this, and they tell me, as one recently did, “the scary thing is that nothing in the article is exaggerated or fabricated,” I take notice.

This is yet another reminder to me of why I am so grateful that, by God's grace, I am Catholic. We have the certitude of knowing that, come what may, Jesus Christ is with us and, as He said, “In the world you will have tribulation. But be of good cheer for I have overcome the world” (John 16:33). But notice that the Lord's promise of having overcome the world includes the reminder that there will be tribulations we must pass through.

The articles I linked to above are brief but representative of many others out there, and they raise unsettling questions that require further elaboration and study.

I'd be curious to know what you think about them. Do you think these warnings are just baseless fearmongering, or is there some truth to them? I'm not sure yet which way I would tilt on this question, but with everything wierd and unsettling that's been going on in the world lately, especially in the U.S., I'm definitely paying closer attention to things like this. What about you?

Coming Economic Collapse


"In his January 14, 2009 radio show, [Peter]Schiff discussed moving out of cities in anticipation of rising crime rates, food shortages, fuel shortages, and rolling blackouts. He also mentioned the need for families to stock up on guns and ammunition as a part of what he expects. This quasi-survivalist stance demonstrates how serious he expects the unfolding economic downturn will be.[15]

[edit] Writings
Schiff is the author of two books:

Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse, 2007, ISBN 978-0470043608
The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Market, 2008, ISBN 978-0470383780

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Predictions
This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (February 2009)

Not all of Schiff's predictions made in Crash Proof or in publicly available transcripts and statements before July 2007 have held out to be true as of January 2009.

Schiff's prediction that the US Dollar would collapse along with the housing bubble has so far not come to pass, with the US Dollar Index rising from 80 points in July 2007 to 83 points in January 2009, a climb which actually accelerated as the US financial crisis became more acute in September 2008.

Similarly, Schiff's prediction that the US financial crisis would cause a greater fall in US equity prices than in non-US equity prices has so far been inaccurate as in 2007-2008 most international equity markets fell further than the US markets. Using the broadest available measures, the MSCI US Broad Market Index was down 34.83% in 2008, while the MSCI All Country Ex-US Index was down 42.86%. [16].

Gold and precious metals during this period have performed significantly better than equity prices, with gold losing only 3.77% and silver 5.38% of their USD values in 2008. Yet with gold under $1,000 per oz, and silver under $20 per oz, precious metal prices have not seen the dramatic run up Schiff has been predicting.

Schiff acknowledges the short-term failure of these particular predictions, but says that the US financial crisis is just beginning to unfold and it is merely a matter of time before the global economy rebalances and his further predictions take form.

On October 28 2008, Schiff stated in an interview on Bloomberg TV[citation needed] that the investment strategies outlined in both books currently "are not working" due to the collapse of foreign currencies, foreign stocks and the failure of gold prices to go up significantly as most of the world entered an economic recession and foreign investors flee to cash. However, he maintained that this was a very temporary phenomenon, "due to deleveraging", and that he expects gold to shoot up to $2,000 per ounce as the dollar soon "drops like a stone." Overall, Schiff remained optimistic on his theories and stated this was a good opportunity to buy foreign stocks trading at yearly lows.

In January 2009 financial blogger Mike Shedlock claimed that Peter Schiff's investment strategies have resulted in some of his Euro Pacific Capital account holders losing 60% to 70% of their value in 2008[17]. Peter Schiff responded to this claim by stating, "to examine the effectiveness of my investment strategy immediately following a major correction by looking only at those accounts who adopted the strategy at the previous peak is unfair and distortive" and claims that losses were most heavily felt by recent clients and not by his long time investors[18].

In an interview on Yahoo Tech Ticker on February 6th, Schiff conceded that the value of his investors' portfolios had dropped as much as 50%, while avoiding the interviewer's question about how much the value of his own accounts had fallen. These returns stood in sharp contrast to the 2008 returns of other investors who shared his views including George Soros (up 10% in 2008) and Nassim Nicholas Taleb (up between 55% and 110% in 2008)."

Born Peter David Schiff

Residence Darien, Connecticut
Occupation Stock broker, investment adviser, author, economist.
Employer Euro Pacific Capital
Peter Schiff (born 1964)[1] is an American economic commentator, author and licensed stock broker who currently serves as president of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., a fully accredited brokerage firm based in Darien, Connecticut.[2]

Schiff is best known for his bearish views on the United States economy and he claims to have predicted the economic crisis of 2008.[3] He has risen to media prominence following the publication of his book Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse.

Aside from his writings, Schiff maintains a significant media presence, often appearing on US financial news programs on networks such as CNBC, CNN, CNN International, Fox News, Bloomberg TV and Fox Business where he is generally booked to provide a bearish counterpoint to more bullish commentators.

Schiff also hosts a live Internet/shortwave radio show called "Wall Street Unspun, which is available in podcast format."[4]

Schiff is a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute[5], and was an economic adviser for Ron Paul's campaign in the 2008 Republican Party primaries, through which Schiff also expressed support for sound money, limited government, and free market capitalism.

Contents [hide]
1 Personal life
2 Career
3 Economic views
4 Writings
5 Criticism
5.1 Predictions
6 Political activity
7 Footnotes
8 External links

[edit] Personal life
Peter Schiff was born in New Haven, Connecticut and was raised in Manhattan and Miami. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley in 1987 with a degree in finance and accounting.[6] During a discussion in his radio show 'Wall Street Unspun' on January 14, 2009 Peter commented that he had a six year old son and was divorced from his wife.[7]

His father is the well-known tax protester Irwin Schiff.

[edit] Career
Schiff began his career in financial consulting with Shearson Lehman Brothers.[8] He launched Euro Pacific Capital in 1996 when he bought a broker-dealer in Florida without clients or revenues and then reincorporated the business in California. In 2005, Schiff relocated to Darien, Connecticut in order to find brokers "who think like him" according to an article in The Advocate of Stamford, Connecticut. The New York Metropolitan Area, he said, has the biggest concentration of brokers in the country, making it easier to recruit them.[4]

The company retains an office in Newport Beach, California as well as in Phoenix and Medford, Oregon. Schiff said in August 2006 that he planned to open offices eventually in Manhattan and somewhere in the Midwest.[4]

Euro Pacific Capital typically recommends an investment strategy which accords with Schiff's pessimistic view of the US economy, focusing heavily on non-US stocks and precious metals.

Euro Pacific Capital holds the exclusive rights to broker certain Perth Mint products in the United States.

[edit] Economic views
In an August 2006 interview Schiff generated much controversy when he repeated his long-held investment thesis: "The United States economy is like the Titanic and I am here with the lifeboat trying to get people to leave the ship ...I see a real financial crisis coming for the United States." On May 16, 2006 in debate on Fox News, Schiff accurately forecast that the U.S. housing market was a bubble that would soon burst.[9] On December 13, 2007 in a Bloomberg interview on the show Open Exchange, Schiff further added that he felt that the crisis would extend to the credit card lending industry.[10] Following this observation, it was soon reported on December 23, 2007 by the Associated Press that "The value of credit card accounts at least 30 days late jumped 26 percent to $17.3 billion in October from a year earlier at 17 large credit card trusts examined by the AP... At the same time, defaults -- when lenders essentially give up hope of ever being repaid and write off the debt -- rose 18 percent to almost $961 million in October, according to filings made by the trusts with the Securities and Exchange Commission."[11]

Schiff also discusses the role of the US consumer in the world, saying that the US consumer thinks he's doing the world a favor by consuming what the rest of the world produces. He is quick to point out that this relationship will come to an end, in his view, much sooner than people imagine, and with negative consequences for the US. Schiff has been quoted as saying: "Consumption is its own reward for Production"—meaning that without production, the US cannot indefinitely sustain its ongoing consumption. Schiff, and other adherents of Austrian economics, promote savings and production as "the engine of economic growth -- not consumption".[citation needed]

Schiff has said on numerous occasions that the current economic crisis is not the problem; it is the solution. According to him, the transition from borrowing and spending to saving and producing cannot be accomplished without a severe recession, given the current imbalances of the US economy. But according to him, that transition needs to happen. He also thinks the government is doing no one a favor by trying to "ease the pain" with stimulus packages, bailouts and such. Schiff believes these actions will only make the situation worse and possibly result in hyperinflation if the government continues to "replace legitimate savings with a printing press."[12]

Schiff is a firm believer in reducing government regulation of the economy. Schiff worries that Barack Obama will increase such regulation.[13]

Schiff points to the low savings rate of the United States as its worst malady, citing the transformation from being the world's largest creditor nation in the 1970s to the largest debtor nation by the year 2000. His extremely bearish views on the U.S. Dollar, the United States stock market, bond market and the United States economy have earned him the nickname "Dr. Doom." [14]

In his January 14, 2009 radio show, Schiff discussed moving out of cities in anticipation of rising crime rates, food shortages, fuel shortages, and rolling blackouts. He also mentioned the need for families to stock up on guns and ammunition as a part of what he expects. This quasi-survivalist stance demonstrates how serious he expects the unfolding economic downturn will be.[15]

[edit] Writings
Schiff is the author of two books:

Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse, 2007, ISBN 978-0470043608
The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Market, 2008, ISBN 978-0470383780

[edit] Criticism

[edit] Predictions
This article may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (February 2009)

Not all of Schiff's predictions made in Crash Proof or in publicly available transcripts and statements before July 2007 have held out to be true as of January 2009.

Schiff's prediction that the US Dollar would collapse along with the housing bubble has so far not come to pass, with the US Dollar Index rising from 80 points in July 2007 to 83 points in January 2009, a climb which actually accelerated as the US financial crisis became more acute in September 2008.

Similarly, Schiff's prediction that the US financial crisis would cause a greater fall in US equity prices than in non-US equity prices has so far been inaccurate as in 2007-2008 most international equity markets fell further than the US markets. Using the broadest available measures, the MSCI US Broad Market Index was down 34.83% in 2008, while the MSCI All Country Ex-US Index was down 42.86%. [16].

Gold and precious metals during this period have performed significantly better than equity prices, with gold losing only 3.77% and silver 5.38% of their USD values in 2008. Yet with gold under $1,000 per oz, and silver under $20 per oz, precious metal prices have not seen the dramatic run up Schiff has been predicting.

Schiff acknowledges the short-term failure of these particular predictions, but says that the US financial crisis is just beginning to unfold and it is merely a matter of time before the global economy rebalances and his further predictions take form.

On October 28 2008, Schiff stated in an interview on Bloomberg TV[citation needed] that the investment strategies outlined in both books currently "are not working" due to the collapse of foreign currencies, foreign stocks and the failure of gold prices to go up significantly as most of the world entered an economic recession and foreign investors flee to cash. However, he maintained that this was a very temporary phenomenon, "due to deleveraging", and that he expects gold to shoot up to $2,000 per ounce as the dollar soon "drops like a stone." Overall, Schiff remained optimistic on his theories and stated this was a good opportunity to buy foreign stocks trading at yearly lows.

In January 2009 financial blogger Mike Shedlock claimed that Peter Schiff's investment strategies have resulted in some of his Euro Pacific Capital account holders losing 60% to 70% of their value in 2008[17]. Peter Schiff responded to this claim by stating, "to examine the effectiveness of my investment strategy immediately following a major correction by looking only at those accounts who adopted the strategy at the previous peak is unfair and distortive" and claims that losses were most heavily felt by recent clients and not by his long time investors[18].

In an interview on Yahoo Tech Ticker on February 6th, Schiff conceded that the value of his investors' portfolios had dropped as much as 50%, while avoiding the interviewer's question about how much the value of his own accounts had fallen. These returns stood in sharp contrast to the 2008 returns of other investors who shared his views including George Soros (up 10% in 2008) and Nassim Nicholas Taleb (up between 55% and 110% in 2008).

On February 13th, 2009, nationally syndicated newspaper columnist Eric Tyson analyzed Schiff's recommendations from a U.S. News & World Report magazine interview from May, 2008 as well as other Schiff recommendations[19]. The piece, which also include an interview of Schiff, also assessed how Schiff came to hold his economic views.

[edit] Political activity
Schiff was an economic adviser to Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. Schiff made the following statement concerning Paul's economic revitalization plan.
"We need a plan that stimulates savings and production not more of the reckless borrowing and consumption that got us into this mess in the first place. Ron Paul's plan is the only one that amounts to a step in the right direction. If you want meaningful change - for the better that is - Ron Paul is the only candidate capable of delivering it."[20]

Schiff also endorsed Murray Sabrin for the US Senate seat in New Jersey.[21]

In December 2008, some fans of Schiff put up a website to encourage Schiff to challenge incumbent Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.[22] On January 23, 2009, yet another group of Schiff fans registered a domain, starting a new site with a new logo, to inspire Schiff for a possible run against Dodd. [23]

[edit] Footnotes
^ Peter Schiff on MySpace.com.
^ [http://brokercheck.finra.org/Individual/IndividualSummary.aspx?SearchGroup=Individual&FirmKey=-1&BrokerKey=1759484
^ The Man Who Called The Collapse
^ a b c "Prophet of Doom? Darien market bear says U.S. investors' ship is sinking," article by Julie Fishman-Lapin in The Advocate of Stamford, Business section, August 6, 2006, pp. F1, F6
^ Interview with Peter Schiff
^ http://www.europac.net/management.asp
^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qumgxS8vXUc
^ [1]Official biographical sketch of Schiff at Euro Pacific Capital Inc. Web site, accessed August 20, 2006
^ [2] Peter Schiff's accurate forecast of the housing collapse
^ [3] Peter Schiff's accurate forecast of credit card market trouble
^ [4] December 2007 Associate Press Story on Credit Card Defaults validates Schiff's gloomy predictions
^ [5] Wall Street Unspun 11-05-08
^ [6] November 2008 The Reagan Counterrevolution
^ When Dr. Doom Speaks We Should Listen Reportonbusiness.com, July 29, 2008. Retrieved on 14 November 2008.
^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qumgxS8vXUc&feature=related
^ http://www.mscibarra.com/products/indices/stdindex/performance.html
^ Europac accounts lose 60% to 70% in 2008
^ http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-ticker/2009/01/30/peter-schiff-responds.html
^ [http://www.erictyson.com/articles/20090213 “...I Don't Think I've Been Wrong on Anything”
^ "Peter Schiff Named Economic Advisor to the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign". Reuters.com Online News (Reuters). 2008-01-25. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS255917+25-Jan-2008+BW20080125. Retrieved on 2008-10-08.
^ "Paul stumps for Sabrin in Newark". PolitickerNJ.com. 2008-04-28. http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/19118/paul-stumps-sabrin-newark. Retrieved on 2008-10-17.
^ Peter Schiff for Connecticut Senator 2010
^ http://voteschiff.com

[edit] External links
Euro Pacific Capital - Management Team Portrait of Peter Schiff at his company's web site
Peter Schiff Unofficial Site which includes videos, news, podcast shows, and more
Part 1 and Part 2 - Peter Schiff Interview On Southland Today (5 September 2002)
Peter Schiff predicts the financial sector crisis (in 2006)
Weekly essays by Schiff
Why Peter Schiff is being attacked, Karen DeCoster, CPA (February 2009)

[hide]v • d • eAustrian School economists

Carl Menger · Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk · Friedrich von Wieser · Frank Fetter · Ludwig von Mises · Joseph Schumpeter · Benjamin Anderson · Henry Hazlitt · Friedrich Hayek · Lionel Robbins · William Harold Hutt · Ludwig Lachmann · Hans Sennholz · Murray Rothbard · Israel Kirzner · George Reisman · Walter Block · Robert Higgs · Gene Callahan · Ralph Raico · Hans-Hermann Hoppe · Steven Horwitz · Yuri Maltsev · Joseph Salerno · Jeffrey Herbener · Thomas DiLorenzo · Jesús Huerta de Soto · Peter Boettke · Mark Thornton · David Prychitko · Jaroslav Romanchuk · Jörg Guido Hülsmann · Peter G. Klein · Peter Schiff · Robert P. Murphy

The Catastrophe that may Await us

Wary of sparking panic, politicians are neglecting to acknowledge the true scale of the catastrophe that may await us, says David Cox
By David Cox
The Catastrophe that may Await us
FIRST POSTED JANUARY 15, 2009There is something oddly muted about current discussion of our economic difficulties. The Government fears we may have to wait until the second half of the year for an upturn. The Opposition warns that counter-recessionary measures may mean higher taxes in future. We should be so lucky.

Doubtless those in charge of our destiny are wary of sparking panic. Hence their reassurances that whatever we face, it won't be anything like the 1930s. On this, at least, they're right. Things could be far worse.

Today, a frozen credit market and impending deflationary spiral are combined with unprecedented global imbalances. The predicament this creates will not be dissolved by fiscal stimuli, debt guarantees and quantitative easing. Such measures may however make things worse.

The US cannot run a deficit big enough to keep its people in work. Attempting to do this will doubtless prompt increasingly impoverished but ever more indebted Americans to demand protectionism. This seems likely to prompt competitive devaluation and the disintegration of the global economic system.

In a worst-case scenario, strikes, riots and looting could all occur – forcing the Government to impose martial law

In such a world, Britain's debt will leave our country particularly disadvantaged, as sterling's slide is already indicating. UK bonds are likely to become unsaleable long before their American equivalents. If our public finances collapse, the IMF is unlikely to be in any position to rescue us.

The Government may find itself obliged to default on pensions and benefits, ravage public services and resort to hyperinflation to dissipate its liabilities. This could make the middle classes as disaffected as the workless.

Our society is no longer cohesive enough to accept whatever share-out of pain authority dictates. Strikes, riots and looting could all occur. Martial law may be required, as Britain loses, perhaps for ever, its standing as a serious world player.

It might never happen. However, any serious approach to our present difficulties must acknowledge that it might.

Germany is Collapsing


Germany is already collapsing
Posted By: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at Dec 19, 2008 at 07:26:46 [General]
Posted in: Business
Tags:View More depression, ECB, Euro, Eurozone, financial crisis, foreign exchange , germany, monetary policy, recession

The German economy is on the "brink of the abyss", says the IMK institute in Dusseldorf. The country's GDP could contract by 3.5pc next year.

Trading down: Despair at the Frankfurt Stock Exchange

We are reaching depression levels here.

The IFO confidence index published by its sister institute collapsed to a record low of 82.6. This is an industrial melt-down.

It is becoming ever clearer that the surplus countries (angels) will suffer just as much - if not more - than the deficit countries (sinners), even if this offends moral justice. This was ultimately the story in the 1930s, though it did not look like that at the outset.

Germany and China have become addicted to exports. This is not as healthy as it looks. They will bear the brunt of belt-tightening by the Anglosphere Club, and East Europe.

Carsten Brzeski, ING's Europe economist, said Germany's fourth quarter will "very likely make history as the worst collapse of the German industry ever. One thing is evident: The current downturn could behave like a rock that threatens to roll down a hill. Once the boulder has gained momentum, it will simply mow down everything in its path. It should be stopped in time."

Quite. Unfortunately the fractured Left-Right coalition of Peer Steinbruck and Angela Merkel lacks the leadership capable of stopping it in time. They have quite simply lost the plot. Like the hapless Bruning government in 1932.

(Note that the German economy tipped into recession even earlier than Britain's economy and faces an equally bad year in 2009. This is not to gloat, nor is it Schadenfreude. It is merely to put matters in perspective at a time when the British press is in extreme self-flagellation mood.)

IMK may or may not be right in calling for another €50bn (£47bn) stimulus for Germany. But it should clear be now that the German people have been very badly let down by the do-nothing crowd in Berlin.

It should also be clear that the ECB has been asleep at the wheel. The IMK institute took the rare step today of attacking the bank, saying it had been "very late" in responding to the crisis.

Julian Callow at Barclays Capital says the euro's trade-weighted index has risen 10.7pc this month (sterling is a big part of it).

This is equal to a rate rise of 175 basis points. Monetary policy is tightening like a vice, although its awful effects will not be felt until deep into next year. (Never underestimate those killer FX time-lags)

The ECB is taking a big risk by refusing to follow the lead of the Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, the US, Canada, and Britain in slashing rates. The result of going it alone has been to drive its currency to levels that have ensured the now inevitable bankruptcy of scores of companies next year. Many of them might have survived under a more pro-active central bank.

A case can be made that the ECB is better off engaging in "qualitative easing" - to borrow the term from Willem Buiter - rather than cutting rates so far that its paralyzes up the money markets and repo system.

Jean-Claude Trichet has not ruled out the purchase of eurozone government debt. The ECB is banned by the Maastricht Treaty from doing this directly - for fear it would be used as a covert bail-out for EMU's profligate states - but it could in theory do it on the secondary market. This would be a political can of worms, of course.

I am coming round to the view that zero rates may be an error. It may be better to hold at 1pc and do "quantitative easing" instead - ie, printing money.

If the ECB chooses this enlightened - albeit late - course of action, I promise readers to be fulsome in my praise.

Will England Defaulted for the first Time since the Middle Ages?



Posted By: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at Jan 20, 2009 at 14:17:08 [General]
Posted in: Business
Tags:View More Bank bail-out, currency crisis, deficit, financial crisis, pound, recession , Sterling

The slide in sterling has turned "disorderly".

We can argue over whether or not the first phase of devaluation acted as a shock-absorber for a badly mismanaged economy, providing a cushion against debt deflation and the housing crash. But the latest dive has a very malign feel.

For the first time since this crisis began eighteen months ago, I am seriously worried that British government is losing control.

The currency has fallen five cents today to $1.39 against the dollar. It is now perched precariously on a two-decade support line -- the levels tested in 2001 and 1992. If it breaks that line, traders may send it crashing down towards dollar parity.

The danger is blindingly obvious. The $4.4 trillion of foreign liabilities accumulated by UK banks are twice the size of the British economy. UK foreign reserves are virtually nothing at $60.6bn. (on this, more later in a piece I'm writing today)

If the Government is forced to nationalise RBS and perhaps Barclays with their vast exposure in dollars, euros, and yen, it risks being submerged. It is one thing for a sovereign state to let its national debt jump in a crisis -- or a war -- perhaps even to 100pc of GDP. It is another to take on foreign debts on such a scale with no reserves. Yes, the banks have foreign assets as well to match the debts. But how much are these assets really worth?

This is the moment when the "rubber hits the road" -- to borrow from American argot -- the moment when the reckless debt experiment of our economic and political leaders comes back to haunt.

We cannot even do what Iceland did to save its skin. Reykjavik refused to honour the foreign debts of its buccaneering banks. It let them default, parking the losses in Resolution Committees. Small islands can do that. Iceland has fish instead, and lots of metals.

Britain cannot follow suit. The debts are too big. If London takes such disastrous action it will set off global panic and lead to an asset death spiral, drawing the entire world into deep depression.

What have our leaders wrought? The reckless conduct of City, the fiscal incontinence of Gordon Brown (3pc deficit at the top of the cycle), and the pitiful regulation of the UK housing boom have all combined to bring the country to the brink of disaster.

England has not defaulted since the Middle Ages. There is a real risk it may do so now.

And no -- just so there is no misuderstanding -- it would not have been any better if Britain had joined the euro ten years ago. The bubble would have been just as bad, or worse, as Ireland and Spain can attest. We have our disaster. They have their disaster. When the dust has settled in five years we can make a proper judgement on the sterling-EMU issue. Not now.

The Baby Boomers have had their moment in power. The most spoilt generation in history has handled affairs with its characteristic hedonism. The results are coming in.

The blithering idiots.

The Sex Abuse Lobby, the Bishops and VOTF

By Fred Martinez

The Washington Times reported that the U.S. Catholic Bishops' sex abuse advisers are "people who have covered up ... sex between men and children." Moreover, these advisers have had close association with "experts" who "defended sex between men and children."

"The bishops recently chose Dr. Paul McHugh, former chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, as chief behavioral scientist for their new clergy sex crimes review board," the Reisman-Jarrard report in the Times said.

"Yet Dr. McHugh once said Johns Hopkins' Sexual Disorders Clinic, which treats molesters, was justified in concealing multiple incidents of child rape and fondling to police, despite a state law requiring staffers to report them."

McHugh's subordinate, Johns Hopkins clinic head Fred Berlin, according to the report, "admitted he had covered for the sex criminals, angering legislators, child-advocacy groups and state officials. But his actions were not surprising, because 'at least eight men have been convicted of sexually abusing Maryland children while under [Berlin's] treatment there.'"

Dr. Judith Reisman and Dennis Jarrard, who wrote the report, are experts in the field of sex abuse and obscenity. Jarrard served as an adviser to the Los Angeles County Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, while Reisman is an internationally known expert on Alfred Kinsey and sex abuse.

Reisman is president of The Institute for Media Education and has been a consultant to three U.S. Department of Justice administrations and the U.S. Department of Education, as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Money Is Berlin's Mentor

The Reisman-Jarrard report said Berlin has been the U.S. Catholic bishops' "chief adviser on child sexual abuse." Yet, according to Reisman, "Dr. Berlin described [pedophilia supporter] Dr. [John] Money as 'one of his most important mentors.'"

The Washington Times report said, "Dr. Money once gave an interview to PAIDIKA the Journal of Paedophilia, an 'academic' publication that advocates adult sex with children alongside ads for the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and other pro-pedophilia groups. He told PAIDIKA that a 'relationship' that is 'totally mutual' between a boy of 10 or 11 and an adult male 'would not [be] pathological in any way.'"

On May 30, The Wanderer, a national Catholic weekly, said that the Money-Berlin advice to the bishops began when "the founder of St. Luke's Institute, Rev. Michael R. Peterson, M.D. [who later died of AIDS], urges the Church to rely on Berlin and Money in a 1985 paper."

Money Is a Disciple of Kinsey

Reisman, quoted in The Wanderer article, said that "Dr. Berlin and John Money, Ph.D., co-founded a celebrated sexual training and treatment center, The Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic. Dr. Money, as it turns out, was a dedicated Kinsey disciple, the mentor for June Reinisch [the third Kinsey Institute director] and on the advisory board of the Kinsey Institute."

The Wanderer piece, titled "The Real Experts Advise Bishops: Sue your Experts," claims much of the Church's "recent difficulties" have come about because "many of the Church's key sexuality advisors are associated with" the agenda created by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University.

Reisman in the article urges the U.S. Bishops to sue their Kinsey experts for malpractice:

"To me, this is a case of massive medical malpractice by those in the human sexuality field, as well as consumer fraud, as well as a broad spectrum of other things for the lawyers to sort out. ...[T] hese so-called 'human sexuality educators' have been teaching behaviors that cause dysfunction, that are anti-authority and anti-Church."

The May 20 article, by Paul Likoudis, said that "Kinsey and his colleagues were the driving force behind the legalization of fornication, adultery, bestiality, pedophilia and other immoral, harmful behaviors."

Fraudulent Scientific Data Eliminates Penalties for Sexual Offenses

Kinsey, because of the worldwide influence of his fraudulent scientific data, has been called the father of the homosexual movement by homosexuals, and the father of the sexual revolution as well as the pornography industry and, some say, the sex abuse lobby.

James H. Jones, an Indiana University scholar and Kinsey Institute insider, in an expos‚ biography titled "Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life," shows the motivation behind the Kinseyan "pan-sexualism" agenda.

In the document "How Junk Sex Science Created a Paradigm Shift in Society, Legislation and the Judiciary," Reisman said:

"Jones' data confirms other reports that Kinsey was a sexist, racist and atheist who excluded women, Jews, blacks, and moral traditionalists from his staff and hired only homosexuals and bisexuals [with one short-term exception]. Kinsey only hired sexual deviants on whom he could rely to keep his secrets including his [scientific] fraud, his 'uncommon desires,' and the child molesters he used to conduct child sex experiments. Jones also reported that Kinsey: coerced his wife into participating in acts of adultery and sodomy with his staff and co-authors [which were filmed], seduced male students at Indiana University [and bullied their wives into participating], filmed sex with his male co-workers [who were rewarded by promotion to co-authorship], and filmed himself participating in sado-masochistic sex rituals."

In this report Reisman also said, "Based on his [fraudulent scientific] data, Kinsey claimed that children enjoyed sex and the real harm of adult-child sex stemmed from 'hysterical' parents, teachers and professionals who reacted with anger and horror to children's disclosures. Based on his findings, many legislatures lightened or eliminated penalties for sexual offenses ... toward children as 'victims' in cases of incest and child molestation."

In 1991, the widely respected British medical journal The Lancet verified Reisman's research when it demanded that the Kinsey Institute be investigated, writing:

"The Kinsey reports [one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later] claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life ... and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again, 'Anything goes'. In 'Kinsey, Sex and Fraud,' Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two [Kinsey] reports."

The Bishops, the "Sex Experts' and the Media's Cover-up

Many believe that the Kinseyan experts and the homosexual network within the Church protected the gay sex abuser at the Dallas meeting. As the National Review's Rod Dreher pointed out on June 13, "the need to avoid the 'elephant in the sacristy [the fact that the vast majority of priest sexual abusers are homosexuals],' in Mary Eberstadt's memorable phrase, is perhaps the only point on which the bishops and the media agree."

To this end, the bishops running the Dallas meeting, according to the June 13 National Review article, had staged "briefings for the media on various aspects of the abuse scandal" by Kinseyan psychiatric panelists such as Fred Berlin, Fr. Stephen Rossetti, Fr. Candice Connors and others with a pro-homosexual agenda.

National Review's Dreher said, "The Rev. Stephen Rossetti, current president of St. Luke's, is believed by some psychiatrists associated with the Catholic Medical Association to have been a big part of the problem, owing to the advice he's been giving bishops. Rossetti has most recently been downplaying the role homosexuality plays in the scandal."

The bishops, the sex experts and the mass media's suppression of the widely known fact that the vast majority of sexual abusers in the Church scandal are homosexuals was even contradicted earlier in the year by a liberal national magazine.

U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo reported that studies have shown that 5 percent or less of priests fit the pedophile description. He said, "Most sexual victims of priests are teenage boys [abused in homosexual acts], according to one estimate. A study of Chicago's 2,200 priests identified 40 sexual abusers, only one of whom was a pedophile."

Also, according to the News Agency's "The World Seen From Rome," Hastings Wyman, syndicated homosexual columnist, wrote: "[T]he pattern of sexual abuse among Catholic clergy does suggest a gay problem 90 percent of the cases of sex with adolescents that have come to light in the Church involved teenage boys, not girls. Do the math." (Between the Lines, May 22, 2002)

During the Dallas bishops meetings on June 15, the homosexual spin group Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) through its network in the Church reported news that the mass media censored. Homosexual activist Cathy Renna, writing for GLAAD's Web site, said that liberal bishops within the church protected the gay sex abuser at the Dallas meeting.

"We also learned more late last night about the anti-gay proposal offered by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb. Bruskewitz's 'Amendment 27' would have stated that because the 'current homosexual culture' was the root cause of the sex-abuse crisis, the bishops would be required to force strict conformity with all church doctrines on sexuality. His proposal was soundly rejected on a voice vote, with a source inside the meeting telling me that it received only perhaps a half-dozen votes of support."

During a victory get-together, Renna said she met with "a number of familiar media faces" and Anne Barrett Doyle of the Coalition of Concerned Catholics who is a member of the steering committee for the lay reform movement Voice of the Faithful.

According to Renna, "Anne was one of the first people I spoke with back in March when we were cultivating resources and contacts to offer media outlets. ... Seeing Anne at the cathedral brought to mind how far we've come in the past months."

During those months, the mass media outlets, under the sway of gay activists like Renna and her friend Doyle of Voice of the Faithful, had censored George Will, Pope John Paul II's spokesman Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, and the almost-all-conservative representatives in Dallas who attempted to report the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse by priests, which U.S. News & World Report detailed before the media cover-up.

VOTF and the Doyle-Peterson-Mouton Report

Activist Anne Barrett Doyle and her organization Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) have also taken part in the cover-up of the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse by priests. In fact, VOTF has been promoting the 1985 report by Fr. Michael R. Peterson, which brought the Kinsey experts and pan-sexualism's non-"judgmentalism" into the Church.

As stated earlier, The Wanderer said that the Kinseyan advice to the bishops began when Peterson, who founded the St. Luke Institute (which the Dallas panelists Connors and Rossetti later ran), urged "the Church to rely on Berlin and Money in a 1985 paper" and on his "pan-sexualism" St. Luke Institute.

Even the pro-gay National Catholic Reporter on May 17 admitted that "[t]he [church's highest court, the Vatican] Signatura's brief, later published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, stated: "St. Luke Institute, a clinic founded by a priest [Fr Michael Peterson] who is openly homosexual and based on a mixed doctrine of Freudian pan-sexualism and behaviorism, is surely not a suitable institution apt to judge rightly about the beliefs and the lifestyle of a Catholic priest."

The liberal bishops continued to rely on Peterson for advice despite the Vatican's warning, as shown in the pro-gay National Catholic Reporter's May 17 article:

"By the time of Peterson's death [of AIDS], Cardinal James Hickey of Washington had come to rely on Peterson, along with a number of bishops, for advice in handling sex-offending members of the clergy. During the Mass, Hickey praised Peterson's work at St. Luke Institute, calling him a 'brilliant and hard-working priest.'"

According to the May 30 The Wanderer article "The Homosexual Network and the 1985 Clergy Sex Abuse Report," Peterson was a "disciple" of John Money and a homosexual who once owned and operated his own "sex-change clinic" in San Francisco.

The 1985 Peterson report, which VOTF has been promoting, said:

"We have been hampered in our profession by extreme moral judgmentalism, if I may use the phrase, and it is only in very few medical schools in this country that the issue is treated or even addressed properly. The Johns Hopkins Hospital Sexual Disorders Clinic run by Dr. John Money [who became a pedophilia supporter] and Dr. Fred Berlin [who later covered up for the sex criminals] is probably the 'authority' scientific community. I know personally both of these highly respected scientists and I am very appreciative of their efforts to bring this psychiatric disorder out of the shadows and into the 'scientific daylight' so that we can begin to see the disorder as a psychiatric disease and not a moral weakness [alterboys.tripod.com/moutonreport/pag e_1x.html]."

The VOTF Web site said that the winner of its first VOTF Priest of Integrity Award, the Rev. Thomas Doyle, "[joined] with Rev. Michael Peterson, a priest/psychiatrist who founded a treatment center for clergy, and Ray Mouton, a Louisiana lawyer, [to write] a comprehensive report in 1985, and sent it to every bishop, identifying sexual abuse as a compulsive, lifelong psychosexual disorder, not a moral weakness."

In a report found on the Survivors' Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) Web site called "A Short History of the Manual," Doyle said that Money's disciple Peterson "was a friend and collaborator." The "Short History" report said the manual was an "instrument about how to deal with cases of priest-pedophilia."

However, the manual failed to bring out the homosexual sex abuse of teenage boys as the overwhelming component of the problem, which then as now is 90 percent or more of the sex abuse scandal. Also in the case of the pedophilia abuse, the vast majority are boys.

Even the Doyle-Peterson-Mouton manual said, "In my experience, most of the pedophiliac clerics I have seen and my colleagues have dealt with are homosexual pedophiles and not heterosexual pedophiles; this is surprising since the greater percentage in the general population is the opposite."

But instead of bringing out the homosexual abuse problem as the main portion of the scandal, the manual calls it a "Compulsive Heterosexual/Homosexual Acting Out," "Pedophilia or Sexual Molestation of Minors" and "Exhibitionism" problem.

The Doyle-Peterson-Mouton manual said and Bill Clinton would appreciate this that "exposing the genitals" to unfamiliar persons "represents one of the 'victimless crimes.'" But the main problem is that the manual uses the standard gay activist spin that VOTF's Anne Barrett Doyle, GLAAD and the media used to censored conservatives in Dallas who attempted to report the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse by priests.

The tactic, as Peterson used for the most part in the Executive Summary of the manual, is to say that the scandal is about pedophilia and then claim that pedophilia is not associated with homosexuality, but is a heterosexual problem or at most a heterosexual/homosexual problem.

The gay activist expert and psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, who wrote the book "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth," which the Congressional Record of May 1996 called the "best book on homosexuality written in our times," states this is a standard spin. He writes:

"Activists are aware of the adverse effect on the gay-rights movement that could result if people perceived any degree of routine association between homosexuality and pedophilia. ... They have denied this association by focusing on the (true) fact that in absolute numbers heterosexuals commit more child molestation than homosexuals.

"But careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals."

From the information that Kinsey expert Reisman has documented, Peterson was only following the Kinseyan advice of his mentors Money and Berlin, until his death of AIDS in 1987. Also, Peterson, who was homosexual as with the gay Kinsey in his data probably felt a need to cover up the gay connection to the scandal in order to protect his gay subculture.

Doyle and VOTF Have No Excuse

But Doyle and VOTF, which is the mass media's favorite "Catholic" lay organization to cure the Catholic Church of its sex-abuse scandal, have no excuse.

Every knowledgeable person without an agenda knows the fact that at least 90 percent of the problem is homosexuals "acting out" on teenage boys. VOTF and Doyle have failed to bring out this fact in their many media opportunities.

In fact, in the 1996 Doyle-Demarest memo, Doyle uses the gay activist spin:

"In the past it was common to refer to priests who had sexually abused male children as homosexuals when in fact "pedophiles" would have been the correct term. ... I am convinced that the use of the term "homosexual" when referring to actions with young boys actually meant pedophilia or at least pedophilic acts [www.thelinkup.com/execsum.html]."

Some orthodox Catholics wonder why VOTF, if it really wants to end the sex abuse scandal, gave the Priest of Integrity Award to Doyle instead of the Latino Fr. Enrique Rueda, who in 1982 wrote "The Homosexual Network."

In the book Rueda documented how disgraced homosexual Archbishop Rembert Weakland and other church leaders brought gay activists into the heart of the church. Connie Marshner of the Free Congress Foundation in a March report "We Were Warned" said:

"The name of the fair city of Boston appears frequently in Fr. Rueda's pages, giving it the dubious distinction of being the birthplace of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association [an interesting coincidence in light of subsequent developments]. Also interesting to note is that one [now infamous mass pedophile] Fr. Paul Shanley attended the NAMBLA convention in Boston, supposedly on behalf of the then-Catholic Archbishop, Medeiros."

"In the early days of 'gay liberation,' 1972, a National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a "Gay Rights Platform." This list of demands included one to repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent a matter of some obvious concern to pederasts."

For his efforts to end the scandal Reuda, according to the March 30 The Wanderer article, was "exiled by his bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester, NY, refused incardination by every other American bishop, and is today, an official 'nonperson' in the American church."

If VOTF and the liberal bishops really want to end the church scandal, then they have to stop covering up the gay part of 90 percent of the scandal. If VOTF and Doyle really want to end the pedophilia part of the scandal, then they have to expose the fraudulent scientific data eliminating penalties for sexual abusers and the Kinseyan "experts" who are advising the bishops.

If not, then VOTF needs to take the advice that Doyle recently gave in Canada:

"Any institution that enables the cover-up, protects the abusers or the authorities that hide them, doesn't deserve to exist."