Breaking video: Man attacks TFP Volunteers, Assaults American Flag

Free speech is less free in Arkansas.  In fact, volunteers with Tradition Family and Property (TFP—Louisiana) were recently attacked in Little Rock during a peaceful rally against Obamacare and its HHS mandate.  The incident occurred on July 17.

Man Targets American flag

At the McCain Mall in North Little Rock, a middle-aged man came up from behind the group as they calmly prayed the rosary. First he said, “Praise be Mary,” giving the impression he was friendly.  Next he shouted, “Get the hell out of here!” and rushed our American flag bearer Elias Bartel, knocking him off his feet with a violent blow.  Old Glory fell over, but not completely because the 19-foot flag pole caught a power line on the way down and was quickly recovered and set upright again.

“I was pretty shocked…  The first thing he did was target the American flag.  He wanted to throw it on the ground,” said Bartel. “What he did was beyond disrespect.”

Second attack

The attacker did not stop there.  Without pause, he immediately assaulted our second volunteer, Jesus Guerra, who was holding the TFP banner which displays a rampant lion and the motto:  “Tradition, Family, and Property.”  As the video clearly shows, our young volunteer was pushed with such violence that he fell backward onto a fire hydrant.  The banner also fell.

“I’m bruised, but not about to give up,” Guerra remarked.  “The attacker’s behavior reflects the socialist mindset:  if they can’t win the debate, they bully you. If they can’t silence the Church on moral values, they use mandates and intimidation.”

As TFP—Louisiana member Cesar Franco dialed 911, the assailant smacked the phone out of his hand.  Finally, the police arrived and a report was made.

A woman who witnessed the attack approached and asked for a flyer, Confronting Religious Persecution in America.  She told Zechariah Long how great she thought TFP volunteers responded to the aggressor.

The 14-member team is currently touring other Southern cities where the reception has been excellent.  Their message alerts the public about the persecution being brought against the Catholic Church by the Health and Human Services mandate and points to the root problem: socialism.

Following the example set by Bishop Jenky of Peoria, Illinois, who called upon Saint Michael the Archangel in the fight for the rights of the Church, TFP—Louisiana volunteers have placed their tour under his powerful patronage.  The attack did not hinder the progress of the TFP caravan. However, it does follow a troubling pattern documented in the video Attacked by “Tolerance.”

If you are an attorney in the Little Rock, and are willing to represent the TFP volunteers who were attacked, please contact Cesar Franco at cfranco@tfp.org

Green and Equal

Written by Gary J. Isbell

Imagine being subject to laws that cannot be followed and being fined for not fulfilling this impossible obligation. This is the great dilemma faced by owners of hundreds of thousands of public pools that are now required to install wheelchair lifts and ramps in their pools, or else face fines and lawsuits because they violate disability laws.

Although the Department of Justice [DOJ] recently issued a 60-day stay of execution for the pool owners, it is only a temporary respite as the present administration has expanded the rules for public access under the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA]. In the name of equality, these rules now require publicly accessible pools have two “accessible means of entry” installed. One of these means must be a wheelchair lift or ramp. Spas are also required to provide a lift or transfer system to assist the disabled under the new regulations.

The ADA has created a situation that has been rightfully labeled "pool-mageddon" by those who oppose the ruling. It made no effort to “grandfather” any pre-existing installations. Rather it made a sweeping mandate that obliges all publically accessed pools and spas to comply. To add insult to injury, there are simply not enough lifts available in the country to comply with this new mandate. What is worse, the DOJ did not recognize the absurdity of this impossible mandate and reversed the decision. It has only stayed the execution of those who have no means to comply.

Do not think this is an isolated case of out of control socialistic regulations limited to the DOJ. In the name making fuels greener, the EPA has recently fined oil companies for not adding a required amount of a special bio-fuel called cellulosic ethanol to their gasoline and diesel. The problem is this additive does not exist. That’s right, the EPA is requiring firms to add a fuel that does not exist, under the penalty of hefty fines starting in 2011. Companies that supply fuel for transportation will face stiff fines when they close their books for 2011 because they did not comply with the federal mandate. It gets worse, the fines for 2012 are higher and the prospects of developing this fuel are nowhere in sight.

According to Tom Tanton, president of T2 & Associates in California, “cellulosic ethanol is not available commercially because the science and economics are not there yet. The technical difficulty stems from trying to break down the cellulose into sugar.” There is some hope on the horizon for the development of an industrial enzyme that will produce cellulosic ethanol in large quantities while at a low cost, which is being developed in Denmark by a company called Novozymes. They have been dedicated to perfecting this critical enzyme for the last ten years, but still do not have a winner. Tanton clearly sees that “this is undoubtedly a great scientific advancement, but there are still large hurdles to overcome before commercialization.”

Such mandates reflect the growing tendency to impose politically correct and green alternatives upon consumers through impossible mandates. It seems that bureaucrats believe that all persons are all born green and equal and woe to anyone who questions this ruling with the truth or reality.

Britain’s HealthCare Disaster; Our Model

Written by Gary Isbell

Britain imposed socialized healthcare in 1948 with the creation of the National Health Service [NHS]. Then Labor Minister Dr. David Owen predicted, “We were going to finance everything, cure the nation and then spending would drop.” This was pure blind hubris. Sixty-four years were wasted in an attempt to prove that socialized medicine could work. So far, it has been an utter failure.

It seems at least one person in Britton is beginning to see the light. The current Prime Minister David Cameron, along with some conservatives, are suggesting to outsource healthcare to the private sector circumventing the NHS. It is cheaper, higher quality and faster.

Joseph A. Morris is a board member of the American Conservative Union and a former White House lawyer under President Reagan, has told the Daily Caller: “Europe’s message to the world is no longer that the socialist dream of the cradle-to-grave welfare state is an easy achievement,” Morris said. “Rather, it is the shouted warning that it is a fool’s paradise. The bills are coming due and the only real alternatives — serious financial reform of government or national bankruptcy — are not pleasant.”

He added that the British government, “unlike the Obama administration, is hearing the warnings, identifying its greatest vulnerabilities and trying to race ahead of the deluge.” So why are we following their failed attempt of socialized healthcare?

American health policy expert Sally Pipes, head of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco thinks she has an answer: “President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will likely ignore any changes in U.K. health policy. Their allies in the U.S. media and public policy establishment would follow suit.… They are ideologues, they don’t care whether the system really works or not. They have an ideological goal in mind.”

She further states “the system of socialized medicine in the U.K., and Canada is viable only for routine visits to the doctor, but not for chronic illnesses like cancer or kidney disease.”

A few years ago in Canada, Pipes’ mother could not get a simple colonoscopy scheduled for several months in spite of excruciating abdominal pain. When her mother started bleeding, she was rushed to the emergency room and finally given the colonoscopy, which indicated colorectal cancer. At this point it was too late for treatment and she died shortly thereafter. This is a tragic example of how socialized healthcare denies the end user of quality treatment and keeps costs down by rationing medical services while it passes on exorbitant administration fees to taxpayers.

If efficiency, perfection and overall quality are not the driving force behind socialized healthcare, what ideology could be the motive behind such a decision — other than to make everyone equally miserable?

Nearly 1.8 million Britons are waiting for hospital or outpatient treatments at any given time. In 2002–2004, dialysis patients in the U.S. waited 16 days on an average for permanent blood vessel access, 20 days in Europe and 62 days in Canada. In 2000, Norwegian patients waited an average of 133 days for hip replacement, 63 days for cataract surgery, 160 days for a knee replacement and 46 days for bypass surgery after being approved for treatment.

Studies have shown that short wait times for cataract surgery produced better recovery rates, prompt coronary artery bypass reduced mortality and rapid hip replacement reduced disability and death. Currently, only 5 percent of Americans wait more than four months for surgery, compared with 23 percent of Australians, 26 percent of New Zealanders, 27 percent of Canadians and 36 percent of Britons. This accounts for a 700 percent increase in wait times comparing the U.S. to the UK.

The founder of the NHS, Aneurin Bevan declared, “The essence of a satisfactory health service is that rich and poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability and wealth is not advantaged.” This is the socialistic argument of equality applied to healthcare, and if it were true, there would be abundant evidence to support the rationale that when all people are treated equally, they will have an equivalent health after socialized healthcare is implemented. This is simply not true. In a study done by the National Center for Policy Analysis [NCPA] titled Equality,^[1] it clearly shows that the powerful and wealthy have significantly greater access to medical treatment. More than 30 years after founding the NHS, an official task force discovered little evidence that it had equalized healthcare access across the board. Another study done 20 years later concluded that “access had become even more unequal in the years between the two studies. High profile patients enjoy more frequent services, shorter wait times and greater choices of specialists.” National Review Online, Socialized Failure.^[2]

Non-elderly, white, low income Canadians are 22 percent more likely to be in poor health than their U.S. counterparts. It appears likely that the personal characteristics that ensure success in a free market economy also enhance a degree of personal success even in overly bureaucratic systems. Unfortunately, socialism destroys the essence of the free market initiative anywhere it is imposed in the futile attempt to force equality and thus, the consequence is failure.

Britton’s 64-year-old socialistic healthcare fiasco started in 1948, ours is promised to begin in 2014.

1.

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/livesatrisk/Ch02.pdf^↑

2.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/article/?q=MDFjODUzM2E0ZTdmMGM4NzgyZDE0M2QzNGYwMDI1MGQ=^↑

What I Saw at Occupy Wall Street

Written by John Ritchie, TFP Student Action

Soon after entering the protest perimeter at Zuccotti Park a piece of communist propaganda was thrust into my hand. The flier starts: “It’s not just Wall Street… capitalism must be destroyed.”

Communist terrorist Che is celebrated at OWS

As I continued reading, other lines jumped off the page: “Only communism can live up to the aspirations the Occupy Wall Street movement has tapped into.” Then the tag line calls readers to “join the revolutionary communist Progressive Labor Party.”

I kept walking, tiptoeing around a maze of sleeping bags and clutter.

The next sight that caught my attention was a large, dirty flag stamped with the figure of communist terrorist Che Guevara held by a disheveled protester. I approached and saw “Smash the State” printed on it. “I don’t think this is going to remain peaceful,” said the fellow holding the communist Che flag. Meanwhile, a group of agitated anarchists dressed in dark, dirty clothes yelled, “What does democracy look like? This is what democracy looks like.”

Is a new tribal savage emerging?

Beside the Che flag was a gray-bearded man hawking buttons. “I’m an anarchist,” he offered. Pointing to his buttons, he explained: “These are anti-war, these are racial, these are gender [pro-homosexual], and these are anti-authoritarian.” Other crude signs were displayed amid the eclectic conglomeration of hundreds of disgruntled protesters. “Eat the rich,” said one. Others promoted socialism or environmental “rights.”

Then I stumbled into a discussion circle dedicated to “breaking the gender binary,” which is another way of saying they want to dismantle the differences between male and female. The very idea of manhood and womanhood was offensive to them.

How interesting. Seemingly separate movements all converged for a common revolt. Protesters shared a common contempt for authority, our military, morality, law, order, private property and inequality in general. By chance, I looked up and saw a man holding a megaphone emblazoned with the word “revolt.”

Class war: "I want you to steal from the rich."

Churchill put it well. “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

I continue strolling around.

The odor was aggressive, very unpleasant. Almost every conversation I overheard was heavily laden with profanity. I was even cursed out by a woman who did not like my video camera.

The protesters fancy that they represent 99% of America. But do they? Do people waving communist flags stamped with an image of Che Guevara, peddling anarchy and socialism really represent 99% of America? No. Not even 1%.

* * *
Protesters in Rome, acting in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street, destroyed a statue of the Virgin Mary.

Watch the footage here

Our Socialist World: Children Banned from Blowing Up Balloons

Children in the United Kingdom are to be banned from taking part in traditional Christmas games, from blowing up balloons to blowing on party whistles, because of new European Union safety rules that have just entered into force. The EU toy safety directive, agreed and implemented by the U.K. Government, states that balloons must not be blown up by unsupervised children under the age of eight, in case they accidentally swallow them and choke. Despite having been popular favourites for generations of children, party games including whistles and magnetic fishing games are to be banned because their small parts or chemicals used in making...MORE BELOW

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8816601/Children-to-be-banned-from-blowing-up-balloons-under-EU-safety-rules.html

NEW VIDEO: Fighting Socialism and Abortion in Texas

Remove Five Christian Holidays in Belgium?

A "Work Group for Interculturality" from the Belgian Government wants to remove Easter Monday, Pentecost Monday, the Ascension, Assumption and All Saints from the list of National Holidays -- Christimas will remain the only free Christian feast day.

Brussels [kath.net/KAP] - A drastic reduction of the holidays in Belgium has been proposed by a "Work Group for Interculturality" of the Belgian government. The current ten feast days will be reduced to five is the "'Work Group's" proposal, said the Belgian media on Tuesday.

Accordingly, heneforth there will only be New Year, the 1st of May, the National Holiday on the 21st of July, the Armistice of 11th of November, and Christmas, the 25th of December will be days off.

Eastermonday, Pentecostmonday [Whitmonday was also a holiday in Ireland till recently], Christ's Ascension, Assumption and All Saints Day will be removed from the calendar. The "Work Group" proposes, depending on confession, that an employee can take two additional workdays free.

New additions will be International Women's Day on 8. March, the 21st of March as the International Day Against Racism and the 21st of May as the World Day of Cultural Diversity.

Among other proposals of the "Work Group" was also to permit the wearing of religious symbols such as the Islamic head covering in school for higher forms [grades]. The teacher's preference, however, should determine whether it is allowed at all.

The Belgian Minister for equal opportunity, Joelle Milquet of the Liberal-Christians Democrats of Wallonia, annaounced, that she wants to reinforce the battle against discrimination. Cultural Diversity is anchored in the heritage of Belgium, she said according to reports from "Le Soir".

VIDEO: How Americans Reject Socialism - TFP Caravan

Members of the American TFP toured Texas this summer to oppose the growing danger of socialism.

Socialism Divides the Waters: Campaign Report from Austin

By John Ritchie

Last night we enjoyed a delicious meal at the home of a gracious family in Manvel and after a good night's rest, we departed to Austin, the state capitol.

Right after unfurling our banners near the Northcross Mall, the reactions began. "God bless America," one lady said as she drove past, followed by a sinister sort of guttural yell from a different car affirming that "God is dead." These two opposite reactions a few short seconds apart reveal the great division within our nation. There are two distinct Americas: one that is for God and another that is against Him. And it so happens that those who favor socialism often display animosity against God, as we have witnessed.

"This is the answer"

"I've been wondering what I can do for our country and this is the answer," said a Texan man bubbling with enthusiasm for the TFP campaign. Unlike other states where we've campaigned before, a good number of Texans who see the campaign are not just content with honking their horns and waving goodbye. They sometimes pull off the road, get out of their cars, and approach to shake our hands and personally encourage us.

"This is the first time I see someone address the real problem: socialism," remarked a gentleman who had pulled off the road for a copy of our flier 10 Reasons to Reject Socialism. "The Tea Party doesn't address it and I want to help you in any way I possibly can." As he gave us his business card, he added: "I'm even willing to hand over my entire paycheck to stop the advance of socialism."

One more car pulled over. This time an older man with graying hair stepped out of his car and into the blazing sun. By the way, the heat index here is at about 104. "Who are you?" he asked. "Tradition, Family and Property," answered one of our caravan members. He took in the scene of our banners waving in the wind, took a flier, paused for a brief moment and said: "Like the Crusades. Keep it up!"

Double thumbs up

Very few passing vehicles merely honk in response to our signs. Many honk in support, then immediately give us a thumbs up or even two thumbs up. However, I should probably also mention that some people make obscene gestures, but not many. The support is dominant. For example, a man driving a pick up truck slowed down at the intersection and handed us a big package of bottled water. In this heat, water is constantly needed.

At evening Mass we met an energetic Catholic nun who had escaped from Vietnam in the 70s. She kindly gave us a tour of the Church built in honor of the Vietnamese martyrs. At the conclusion of the visit, she inquired where we planned to have dinner and was somewhat surprised with our lack of plans and invited us to a Chinese restaurant, where the younger caravan members tried eating with chopsticks and shied away from tasting squid. But more important than overcoming the fear of squid was the dinner conversation.

The good sister told us how she had escaped from communism on a small boat loaded with 150 people. The infants on board were given sleeping pills and stored in fish crates or compartments beneath the deck. Food was scarce and she went three days without anything to eat. If detected by Communist Vietnamese agents, everyone on board the 25-foot boat would be arrested, sent to forced labor camps, or just killed. During this harrowing experience everyone on the boat was praying the rosary. She reached Malaysia and finally the United States. She also spoke about the persecution of the Catholic Church in Vietnam, which only underscored the need to oppose socialism in America.

Texans Reject Socialism -- Report From the Front Lines

Written on the road by John Ritchie

I am glad to tell you that the American TFP and TFP-Louisiana kicked off a new caravan in Texas. Our tour is taking us to a number of major cities in the Lone Star State with the clear goal of alerting the public about the growing dangers of socialist ideology in America. As many of our friends and supporters expressed interest in following our travels and campaigns, we will be posting daily updates from the front lines.

10 Reasons to Reject Socialism

Our first campaign today started at a busy intersection in Beaumont. It was in the 90s, and for those of us who are not accustomed to Texas weather, the sizzling hot sun and elevated temperatures posed an added challenge. By the end of the day we all had hats to protect ourselves from the blazing sun. Now I know why cowboys use those characteristic hats.

A lady paused at the intersection, rolled down her car window and said: "I am happy to see you out here dressed like that. You represent me and I am proud of you!" One of our volunteers gave her a copy of the TFP flier, 10 Reasons to Reject Socialism, and she drove away very pleased.

The TFP campaign was very visible. We have a large banner and it reads: "May God protect America from socialism." Smaller posters invite passing vehicles to "Honk for true freedom from socialism." So, as you can imagine, what typically happens is this: as soon as the traffic light turns green a symphonic eruption of honking horns begins. Then there is our bagpiper playing patriotic music which attracts yet further attention. That explains why a news crew with Channel 6 that happened to be driving by pulled over and filmed the campaign. I'm pretty sure they showed a segment of our campaign on the 5 or 6 o'clock news.

"Like Children in an Ice Cream Shop"

"Thank you for doing this," said a passerby. "It's about time someone does something about socialism instead of just talking about it."

Lots of people people driving by honked with broad smiles on their faces. TFP member Charles Sulzen described the support we received today very well. He put it this way: "They see the campaign and smile like children in an ice cream shop."

I should mention that some new volunteers in their teen years have joined us from Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. After hearing about the TFP caravans at one of the Call to Chivalry summer camps, they asked to participate. It is their first caravan and they are doing very well.

Several families here have gone out of their way to assist us during our travels. For example, a delicious lunch and dinner were provided for us at a local Catholic Church hall. During dinner a group of Knights of Columbus gathered to hear more about the TFP campaign.

Tomorrow, we will push on to Houston.

Until then, please continue to pray for us as. Thank you for your prayers and support.

10 Reasons to Reject Socialism

1. Socialism and communism are the same ideology

Communism is but an extreme form of socialism. From the ideological standpoint, there is no substantial difference between the two. In fact, the communist Soviet Union called itself the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922-1991) and communist China, Cuba and Vietnam define themselves as socialist nations.

2. Socialism violates personal freedom

Socialism seeks to eliminate "injustice" by transferring rights and responsibilities from individuals and families to the State. In the process, socialism actually creates injustice. It destroys true liberty: the freedom to decide all matters that lie within our own competence and to follow the course shown by our reason, within the laws of morality, including the dictates of justice and charity.

3. Socialism violates human nature

Socialism is anti-natural. It destroys personal initiative – a fruit of our intellect and free will – and replaces it with State control. It tends to totalitarianism, with its government and police repression, wherever it is implemented.

4. Socialism violates private property

Socialism calls for "redistributing the wealth" by taking from the "rich" to give to the poor. It imposes taxes that punish those who have been able to take greater advantage of their productive talents, capacity to work or thrift. It uses taxation to promote economic and social egalitarianism, a goal that will be fully achieved, according to The Communist Manifesto, with the "abolition of private property."

5. Socialism opposes traditional marriage

Socialism sees no moral reason for people to restrict sex to marriage, that is, to an indissoluble union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, socialism undermines private property, which Friedrich Engels, founder of modern socialism and communism along with Karl Marx, saw as the foundation of traditional marriage.

6. Socialism opposes parental rights in education

Socialism has the State, and not parents, control the education of children. Almost from birth, children are to be handed over to public institutions, where they will be taught what the State wants, regardless of parental views. Evolution must be taught. School prayer must be forbidden.

7. Socialism promotes radical equality

A supposed absolute equality among men is the fundamental assumption of socialism. Therefore, it sees any inequality as unjust in itself. Private employers are quickly portrayed as "exploiters" whose profits really belong to their employees. As a consequence, they rule out the system of wage earning.

8. Socialism promotes atheism

Belief in God, who unlike us is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient, clashes head-on with the principle of absolute equality. Socialism therefore rejects the spiritual, claiming that only matter exists. God, the soul, and the next life are illusions according to socialism.

9. Socialism promotes relativism

For socialism there are no absolute truths or revealed morals that establish standards of conduct that apply to everyone, everywhere, and always. Everything evolves, including right and wrong, good and evil. There is no place for the Ten Commandments, neither in the private mind nor in the public square.

10. Socialism mocks religion

According to Karl Marx, religion is "the opium of the people." Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, agreed: "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."

May God protect America from socialism.

Is Communism Really Dead?

We ask how it is possible for these protesters to fly the Soviet flag in Copenhagen.

They know that communism had dragged the nations under Moscow's yoke into such misery. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, everyone had the opportunity to see the miserable situation in Russia and the captive nations. Why do they belong to a political party whose only achievement was to throw their own nations into this extreme poverty, slavery and disgrace.

Socialist Intervention in the Private Sector is Not True Health Care Reform

The State is assuming the functions of the private sphere.

The great controversy over health care reform is centered on concerns of countless Americans that proposed legislative changes will move the country yet one more step down the road toward State intervention and socialism.

This concern is well founded. For decades, the State at all levels and branches has increasingly absorbed the functions of the private sphere. It has weakened the social fabric of the nation by usurping many rights and privileges of individuals, families and businesses with excessive regulation and bureaucratic red tape.

It has imposed similar burdens on those private associations which are the natural intermediate bodies between the individual and the State, such as institutions of the Catholic Church¹ and other religious bodies; health and educational institutions; trade and labor associations; and countless charitable groups.

Many Americans are now concerned that direct State intervention in health care will go yet farther and lead to the socialization of our economy.

Respecting the Principles of a Christian Social Order
There is no doubt that the State can act within the principle of authority which affirms the need for a moral force in society capable of efficaciously directing and encouraging the actions of all towards the common good of the social body.

However, there are two other pillars of a Christian social order that must be considered. First, the principle of solidarity, derived from the common nature of men, which leads them to show mutual concern and support for others. There is also the principle of subsidiarity— whereby what can be done by an individual or smaller group is not assigned to a larger group. This principle stems from the fact that man is not only a social being but also a rational, essentially free and responsible being. Thus, he is guaranteed the right to resolve his problems either by himself, through his family or other intermediate social bodies without being obliged to wait for solutions from public authority.

When the State intervenes unnecessarily in the life of its citizens, it invokes the principle of authority to suppress the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity. However, while the principle of authority is fundamental for the promotion of the common good, its role is to support and complement the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, not to destroy them. Without balance and harmony among these three fundamental principles, society falls into disarray and easily slides towards totalitarianism, a regime that respects neither individual rights nor freedom.²

Undue State intervention in the private sphere (that is, individuals, families, businesses, religious and other associations) inexorably leads to socialism.

Socialism: A Utopian Ideology
Socialism is a utopian ideology that seeks to eliminate human selfishness by destroying individual freedom, private property and free enterprise. Socialists believe they can eliminate injustice by transferring responsibilities from individuals and families to the State. However, their efforts are tantamount to killing the patient to cure his illness.

By suppressing individual responsibility, socialism actually creates the greatest possible injustice because it destroys true liberty, which is every man’s freedom to decide for himself all matters that lie within his competence, to follow the course shown by his own reason, and to keep within the laws of morality and the dictates of justice and charity.

Socialism is anti-natural because it destroys man’s initiative — a fruit of his intellect and free will — which tends to manifest itself in everything he does. When the State replaces individual initiative, socialism’s totalitarian aspect enters with the inherent appearance of government and police repression that has been abundantly seen wherever it is implemented.

The state does not have the obligation to provide health care.

Is There a Right to Health Care?
According to natural law, man has the right to take care of his own health and physical integrity. However, this individual freedom does not mean that the State must provide for one’s health care at others’ expense.

Take property rights, for example. Every man has the right to acquire property. However, this natural freedom does not oblige the State to give him property. Likewise, the fact that every man has a right to take care of his health needs does not oblige the State to give him direct medical assistance at taxpayers’ expense. Under natural law, the State’s obligation is to further the common good and guarantee the rule of law so that no one is prevented from seeking the means to obtain treatment, just as no one is prevented from acquiring property.

Thus, in ordinary circumstances, the State is under no strict obligation to provide health care for citizens, though it must foster general conditions that are favorable to the health of all. The State has no right to intervene directly in health care except in a subsidiary way, as it has done for years, when private initiative (including the efforts of religious and charitable organizations) is unable to provide health care. However, it must do this in a way that never weakens, much less destroys, private initiative.

One might ask how the poor who cannot afford heath care should obtain it. In virtue of the principle of solidarity and above all of Christian charity, it behooves primarily society, through its members, particularly the most wealthy, be it individually, be it through charitable organizations, to come to the aid of those who are unable to provide by themselves for their health needs, as is amply done already through America’s own extensive charitable networks.³

Right to Health Care or to Procure it?
Most Rev. Joseph F. Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City, Kansas, and Most Rev. Robert W. Finn, Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph (Missouri), have made some important distinctions that help clarify the debate.

Quoting from a document of the Catholic Medical Association, the two bishops remind the faithful that instead of speaking of the “Right to Health Care,” it is more appropriate to speak of the “Right to Acquire the Means of Procuring for One’s Self and One’s Family these goods and concomitantly, a duty to exercise virtue (diligence, thrift, charity) in every aspect of their acquisition and discharge.”⁴

The bishops go on to say that “the right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it.…The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services. Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health.” Existing safety nets “are not intended to create permanent dependency for individuals or families upon the State, but rather to provide them with the opportunity to regain control over their own lives and their own destiny.”⁵

State Centralization Obstructs Health Care
To centralize health care in the hands of the State also harms the speed and efficiency of the medical assistance being provided. It further destroys the natural and trusting relationships between physicians and other health providers with their patients. Everything tends to become impersonal and remote.

Centralization is not possible without creating a huge bureaucratic machine which will absorb hard-earned taxpayer dollars which should be applied to those purposes the State is directly responsible for.

Bishops Warn of Dangers
Several other Catholic bishops have emphasized this centralizing aspect of the health care debate. In this sense, Most Rev. R. Walker Nickless, Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa warns that health care should not be subject to "federal monopolization" and that "the proper role of government is to regulate the private sector in order to foster healthy competition and curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect."⁶

In the same line, Most Rev. Thomas G. Doran, Bishop of Rockford, Illinois, writes: "Our federal bureaucracy is a vast wasteland strewn with the carcasses of absurd federal programs which proved infinitely worse than the problems they were established to correct.” He continues: “Modern socialist governments like to…the means to protect and extend life. Some have called the current efforts of our federal government ‘senioricide’ or ‘infanticide.’ That perhaps is too severe, but we as Catholics should take care that health care does not morph into life control."⁷

Most Rev. James V. Johnston, Bishop of Cape-Girardeau and Springfield, Missouri, writes: “One might legitimately ask if giving a large, inefficient, but powerful bureaucracy like the federal government control of health care is a wise move. For one, this runs counter to the well-known principle of subsidiarity, so prominent in Catholic social teaching.… Certainly, [the government] has a role to play, but that does not necessarily mean that it should be the sole provider of health care.…The essential element of the principle of subsidiarity is the protection of individual freedoms from unjust micromanagement and manipulation by the state.”⁸

Likewise, Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Denver, writes: "[A] proper government role in solving the health-care crisis does not necessarily demand a national public plan, run or supervised by government authorities. Real health-care reform need not automatically translate into federal programming."⁹

In a letter to the clergy and faithful of his diocese, Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, Bishop of Fargo, North Dakota, cites the danger of thinking "the national government is the sole instrument of the common good."¹⁰

Abortion and Health Care Reform
Finally, the issue of abortion must be addressed since the nefarious practice is not health care but its contrary. Although proponents have insisted that the various Majority-supported bills will not favor abortion, this assertion does not withstand serious scrutiny. Amendments that would have clearly excluded abortion were rejected in committee. Further, there is every reason to believe that, in the future, the courts could rule that, constitutionally, abortion cannot be excluded from coverage.

The risk that abortion and euthanasia will somehow be included in the health care reform legislation is in itself grounds to oppose it. Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia, and numerous other prelates have gone on record to reiterate that this is a line the Church cannot cross.¹¹

In light of the considerations above, the American TFP calls on the nation to redouble its vigilance and its peaceful and legal opposition to any health care reform that favors an increase in State interventionism in the private sector, abortion or other anti-natural initiative.

Socialism will not resolve the problems inside the American health care system. Indeed, it will destroy the present system at its very core and thus irreversibly ruin that which, despite its shortcomings, is universally recognized as one of the best systems in the world.

May Our Lady, Consoler of the Afflicted, help the nation’s elected officials to resist the temptation to implement any kind of socialism. Rather, let them be faithful to the mores and principles underpinning a truly Christian and just social order.


September 21, 2009
The American TFP

The above statement appeared in The Washington Times of September 21, 2009.

*********************************************

Related Texts

The Principle of Subsidiarity in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
Subsidiarity is among the most constant and characteristic directives of the Church's social doctrine and has been present since the first great social encyclical. It is impossible to promote the dignity of the person without showing concern for the family, groups, associations, local territorial realities; in short, for that aggregate of economic, social, cultural, sports-oriented, recreational, professional and political expressions to which people spontaneously give life and which make it possible for them to achieve effective social growth. This is the realm of civil society, understood as the sum of the relationships between individuals and intermediate social groupings, which are the first relationships to arise and which come about thanks to “the creative subjectivity of the citizen”. This network of relationships strengthens the social fabric and constitutes the basis of a true community of persons, making possible the recognition of higher forms of social activity.

The necessity of defending and promoting the original expressions of social life is emphasized by the Church in the Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, in which the principle of subsidiarity is indicated as a most important principle of “social philosophy”. “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.” (Internal notes omitted)

(Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, nn. 185-186)

Pope Benedict XVI:
“We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything”

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion thatman can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) − a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.”

(Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, Dec. 25, 2005, n. 28)

Pope Pius XI:
“No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist”

“Society, therefore, as Socialism conceives it, can on the one hand neither exist nor be thought of without an obviously excessive use of force; on the other hand, it fosters a liberty no less false, since there is no place in it for true social authority, which rests not on temporal and material advantages but descends from God alone, the Creator and last end of all things.

“If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.

(Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, nn. 119-120)

___________________________
Footnotes

¹ An estimated 25% of America’s hospitals are associated with the Catholic Church. One should also consider the thousands of Catholic schools and colleges, cemeteries, and untold charitable projects to help the poor.

² Cf. Baltasar Péres Argos, S.J., “Los Cuatro Pilares fundamentales del Ordem Social y Economico, Segun la Doctrina de la Iglesia,” Verbo, Mar.-Apr. 1991.

³ The right to health care by those who cannot afford it is a right based in charity, not in strict justice. Now then, the rights based in charity “are rights latu sensu as they do not oblige with precision and are not enforceable (legally).” (Régis Jolivet, Traité de Philosophie [Paris: Emmanuel Vitte, 1949], Vol. 4, p. 153 – Our translation). Cf. Joseph Rickaby, S.J., Moral Philosophy: Ethics, Deontology and Natural Law (London: Longmans, Green & Co., Ltd., 1929), pp. 246-247; Michael D. Greaney, “Universal Health Care—Justice or Charity?” Social Justice Review, Sept.-Oct. 2003, p. 132.

⁴ Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and Bishop Robert W. Finn, Joint Pastoral Statement on Principles of Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care Reform, Aug. 22, 2009,www.diocese-kcsj.org/news/viewNews.php?nid=60. (The bishops’ emphasis.)

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Bishop R. Walker Nickless, Pastoral Message on the Assumption of Mary, Aug. 17, 2009, www.scdiocese.org/DioceseofSiouxCity/AssumptionofMary/tabid/415/Default.aspx.

⁷ Bishop Thomas G. Doran, “Concerns to take to heart in health care and proposed reforms,” The Observer, Aug. 7, 2009 at
observer.rockforddiocese.org/Columnists/BishopThomasGDoran/BishopDoran2009columns/August72009/tabid/2259/Default.aspx.

⁸ Bishop James V. Johnston, “Skinning the ‘Health Care Cat,’” The Mirror, Sept. 4, 2009, at home.catholicweb.com/diocspfdcape/index.cfm/NewsItem?id=272041

⁹ Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., “Health care, justice, and the course of our national debate,” Denver Catholic Register, Sept. 2, 2009, at www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/2491/Archbishop.

¹⁰ Bishop Samuel Aquila, Letter of Aug. 28, 2009, at www.fargodiocese.org/Bishop/Homilies/HealthCare20090828.pdf.

¹¹ Cf. Aug. 11, 2009 letter from Cardinal Justin Rigali as Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Issues to the U.S. House of Representatives, at www.usccb.org/prolife/CardRigaliHealthCareReformLetter-08-11-09.pdf.

A Timely Quote from St. John Chrysostom

Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person's gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people's hearts first - and then they will joyfully share their wealth.
-St. John Chrysostom