Here is what’s going on here, and what isn’t.
1. The conversations between leaders of the SSPX and the Holy See are just that: conversations. These are not negotiations, for there is nothing to be negotiated; nor is this a dialogue between equal partners. On the one hand, we have the bishop of Rome and those curial officials whose work is an extension of his papal office; on the other hand, we have a society of clergy who have been living in disobedience to the Roman pontiff for decades, and their lay followers, many of whom are more confused than willfully schismatic. The purpose of these conversations is to make clear what the Second Vatican Council taught (especially about the nature of the Church), to listen politely to what the SSPX has to say, and to invite the SSPX back into the full communion of the Catholic Church, which the SSPX broke in 1988 when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed the schismatic act of illicitly ordaining bishops without the authorization of the Roman pontiff (and against the direct, personal pleas of Pope John Paul II).

2. Despite what some “Vatican insiders” have said, these conversations do not represent a bold initiative by the Holy See; and despite the carping from the mainstream media, these conversations are not a craven papal concession to the demands of angry traditionalists whose dissent from Vatican II Benedict XVI is alleged to share. Rather, the conversations now underway are an act of pastoral charity by the pope, who is quite clear about the settled doctrine of the Church and who wishes to invite all, including members of the SSPX, to adhere to that doctrine. Nor is this about mutual enrichment; it is not easy to see how the Catholic Church is to be theologically enriched by the ideas of those who, whatever the depth of their traditional liturgical piety, reject the mid-20th century reform of Catholic thought of which Joseph Ratzinger was a leader. The pope is under no illusions on this score; his purpose is to invite the SSPX back into full communion, thus preventing the schism of 1988 from becoming a permanent wound in the Mystical Body of Christ.

3. The issues to be engaged in these conversations do not involve liturgy; the pope has addressed the legitimate pastoral needs of SSPX clergy and SSPX-affiliated laity by his decree allowing the unrestricted use of the 1962 Roman Missal. The real questions have to do with other matters. Does the SSPX accept the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on religious freedom as a fundamental human right that can be known by both reason and revelation? Does the SSPX accept that the age of altar-and-throne alliances, confessional states, and legally established Catholicism is over, and that the Catholic Church rejects the use of coercive state power on behalf of its truth claims? Does the SSPX accept the Council’s teaching on Jews and Judaism as laid down in Vatican II’s “Declaration on Non-Christian Religions” (“Nostra Aetate”), and does the SSPX repudiate all anti-Semitism? Does the SSPX accept the Council’s teaching on the imperative of pursuing Christian unity in truth and the Council’s teaching that elements of truth and sanctity exist in other Christian communities, and indeed in other religious communities?

Those are the real issues. Conversation about them is always welcome. Those who confuse conversation with negotiation make genuine conversation all the more difficult.

This couldn’t have been what OPT expected when it tried to capitalize on the obsession of leftist politicians with global warming.  But their press release, put out in September of this year, struck many as more than a little self-serving.  Perhaps it was that it hailed contraception as, of all things, “the latest in green technology.”  Or perhaps it was the OPT funded the very study by the London School of Economics that it later hyped in its press release.  Then there was the study itself, which made the rather strange claim that, “considered purely as a method of reducing future CO2 emissions, family planning is more cost-effective than leading low-carbon technologies.”

The report concluded by claiming that “the population issue must now be added into the negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.”  Although the authors stopped short of asserting, as Al Gore did, that babies cause global warming, they came close.  Readers are left with the impression that fewer breathing humans equal a greener, healthier planet.  We’ve never heard that one before.

A visit to OPT’s prehistoric web site is like a trip back in time. “By reversing population growth,” OPT says, “we’d be taking another green step towards environmental survival for all.”  There is no mention that Europe is dying.

The site even has a “Stop At Two” pledge, where environmental devotees can make a promise to reverse population growth.  One wonders whether any of OPT’s aging membership are still young enough to reproduce.

The intriguing thing about OPT’s most recent pitch for mass population control—disguised as a scientific study—is the reaction it garnered among the public.  One might expect at least some denizens of the Left to enthusiastically second its program, or at least nod approvingly.

Instead, the reaction was muted and, well, uncomfortable.

Austen Ivereigh of America Magazine , for instance, encountered OPT at London’s “Battle of Ideas” festival in early November. Ivereigh reminds us that “doom-mongers always ignore the elasticity of economic productivity,” and contends that “the ecological crisis will be solved by meeting the needs of the poor, not chasing them off the planet.”

Even Ellie Lee, a self-proclaimed member of the pro-choice movement, takes issue with the “moral imperative” laid down by the OPT.  “Campaign groups such as the Optimum Population Trust,” she writes on the Times Online, “seek to persuade us that we should plan, found and grow our families according to a moral imperative far more pressing than what we may feel is right for us.”

Lee is (rightly) miffed at the idea that OPT sees itself as a referee on who can have children, and when. “This is the attempt to manipulate the feelings and decisions of women all over the world,” she writes, “as they negotiate their way through the profoundly important process of making decisions about when to start a family.”

Brendan O’Neill, writing for Spiked! , thinks likewise.  He describes an invitation-only OPT conference that he attended earlier this year, quipping that the affair was “hideously white.”  There is something “unavoidably spooky,” he notes, about people who spend all their time “fretting about overpopulation.”

“You can bet,” he continues, “that when these well-to-do worriers about the human plague on the planet talk about burdensome people causing ‘congestion, overcrowding and loss of green space’ . . . they aren’t talking about themselves, or their friends, or their neighbors, or their mistresses; they’re talking about ‘them’. You know ‘them’! The breeders, the not-sufficiently-educated, the dwellers of teeming cities, not only in Africa and Asia but in Europe and America too.”

This apt observation shines a harsh light on the innate “creep factor” of organizations like OPT.  Their members, when viewed en masse, look less like crusading saviors of the earth, and more like angry, bigoted, pampered ideologues.  Their creed has not aged well.

Regrettably, gatherings of these types of crazy people are not limited to country clubs and richly-catered seminars.  Population obsession is alive and well in men like John P. Holdren, President Obama’s “Science Czar.”  PRI has reported on Holdren’s extremism in the past, and suffice it to say he has shown evidence of being yet another of these “well-to-do worriers.”  Unfortunately, he now has the President’s ear, as well.

However, culturally, population control is beginning to make the Western public uncomfortable.  While many still believe the world to be overrun with humans, the proposed “solutions” to this so-called “problem” are even more unthinkable.  Men like John P. Holdren, and the leaders at OPT, would do well to remember this.

As far as population control goes, in the words of a sixties song, the times, they are a-changin’

What is the CCHD?

Here is a little background according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ website:

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development [founded in 1969] is the domestic anti-poverty, social justice program of the U.S. Catholic bishops. Its mission is to address the root causes of poverty in America through promotion and support of community-controlled, self-help organizations and through transformative education.

Last year after CCHD pulled their funding from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) because of the national scandal, Bellarmine Veritas Ministry (BVM) began looking into other CCHD recipients. They found several grantees that had promoted contraception or abortion and issued voter guides in 2008 advocating homosexual marriage. A coalition called, Reform CCHD Nowwas formed when BVM joined forces with American Life League and Human Life International. Their website is http://www.ReformCCHDNow.com.

Misuse of Funds

Information on the site states that despite assurances to the contrary, the “CCHD has funded groups that openly oppose the Church’s teachings, including:

· Young Workers United – supports abortion rights, legalized prostitution and gay marriage.

· The Chinese Progressive Association (San Francisco) – supports abortion rights and gay marriage, actively urging its members to vote against Prop 8 in California, which would define marriage as between a man and a woman.

· People Improving Communities through Organizing (PICO) – currently campaigning for the a version of healthcare reform, which has government-funding of abortion and does not protect the conscience rights of medical professionals who decline to perform or refer for abortions.

What Should Our Response Be?

Many good Catholics are left wondering, “What should we do? Do we put money in the envelope to support our Church? Or, do we refuse to support an organization that is either careless with our donations or complicit in anti-Catholic causes.”

Simply ignoring the call for donations might not send a strong enough message to the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops which has the ultimate authority over the CCHD. After all, given the hard economic times, a dearth of donations may be mistaken for lack of funds rather than lack of support.

On their website Bellarmine Veritas Ministry (BVM) recommends that Catholics not contribute to the CCHD this year. In fact they want three things to be reformed before any more money is donated ever again:

1. Immediate and public removal of funding from the grantees which blatantly contradict Church teaching on life issues and morality;

2. Grantees which support the current health care reform legislation must state clearly and publicly that they will not promote any piece of legislation which gives federal support to abortion or family planning;

3. A better system of oversight must be put in place to prevent such organizations from receiving CCHD funding in the future.

BVM says that until these demands are met, Catholics should consider donating to familiar local groups which aid the poor or some other charity which is in line with Church social and moral teaching as a substitute for donating to the CCHD. They also suggest that instead of simply abstaining from putting those envelopes into this Sunday’s collection, to print out a statement of protest into the envelope lest the message be lost. The coalition even offers suggested text which can be printed out from their website: http://reformcchdnow.com/coupon/coupon.pdf.

I ________________ am withholding my donation to the CCHD this year due to the discovery that money from this collection has been used to fund groups which promote abortion and other practices which violate our Catholic faith. Until the CCHD implements measures which will prevent such groups from receiving funding, I will donate to a charity which better fulfills our call to help those in need.

Reform, it seems, is often a slow process. Scandals are not always addressed forcefully or openly. When the Church delays in correcting her mistakes, however, disillusionment among the laity usually follows.

Scandal creates inner conflict within the Catholic community. After all, we have not followed the protestant example of protesting. Faithful Catholics follow Church authority, but it’s only logical that we expect that authority not to waver. So, if there are any organizations that defy Catholic teachings, they should not receive funding from the CCHD. The message should be clear: Catholics will not put their money into organizations that violate Catholic teaching.

After a closer look at this group, pro-life Catholics proceed with caution. This is the same group that gave their support to Candidate Obama, Speaker Pelosi, HHS Secretary Sebelius and other left-leaning pro-abortion Democrats. This group, according to Catholic News Agency (CNA), “supported the president’s health care bill even when the U.S. bishops were opposing it, before the Stupak Amendment passed in the House.”

So, what is this group saying on the subject of health care reform? Why should we be cautious about joining their campaign?

Catholics United wants to muddy the waters. They want as many Catholics as possible to think that supporting this reform is synonymous with supporting our bishops and adhering to the Catholic faith.  Their effort is working. Even the LA Times got it wrong when they attributed a CU quote to the United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Kim Geiger, a reporter at the LA Times wrote:

The [Stupak Amendment] won immediate support from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which urged Catholics to ‘lend their full-throated support’ to the Democrat’s healthcare bill.

Trouble is, the USCCB did not make this statement. It was made by the CU Executive Director Chris Korzen, but the LA Times incorrectly attributed these words to our bishops. The mistake has been corrected, but how many readers were misled before the LA Times set the record straight?

Cardinal Francis George noted that the bishops were thankful “the Representatives honored President Obama’s commitment to the Congress and the nation that health care reform would not become a vehicle for expanding abortion funding or mandates.”  In addition, Cardinal George warned that “the Conference will remain vigilant and involved throughout this entire process to assure that these essential provisions are maintained and included in the final legislation” (full statement at the USCCB website).

While CU wants Catholics to believe it is a moral imperative to back reform with “full-throated support,” Cardinal Francis George has made it clear that:

[The bishops] remain deeply concerned about other aspects of health care reform as the debate now moves to the Senate, especially as it affects the poor and vulnerable, and those at the beginning and end of life. We will continue to insist that health care reform legislation must protect conscience rights.  We support measures to make health care more affordable for low-income people and the uninsured. We remain deeply concerned that immigrants be treated fairly and not lose the health care coverage that they now have.

According to their website, CU wants Catholics to lend their full support to a bill that is still in transition. Nobody can be sure what the bill will look like when it emerges from the Senate. We can rejoice that the House version did contain some strong safeguards for the unborn, thanks to the USCCB and Congressman Stupak. But it is premature for Catholics to give their blessing to any legislation before it is clear what the bill will look like in the end.

One article on the CU website for heath care reform criticizes pro-life Catholics who were adamant on the Stupak up/down vote. CU wants to know why those who were so vocal in their support of the Stupak Amendment would be silent now that it has passed:

Nonetheless, some Republican-affiliated groups who claim a Catholic orientation – including the American Life League — have broken with the Bishops’ Conference by opposing the legislation. Others, like the Catholic League and Family Research Council, remained silent Saturday after attacking the legislation for months.

While CU is wondering why pro-life Catholics are silent now that the Stupak Amendment has passed, pro-life Catholics are wondering why the CU was so quiet with regard to the Stupak Amendment, before it was clear Speaker Pelosi would permit a vote on it. Where was the outcry from CU when the USCCB was working diligently to get those provisions and safeguards in the bill? And why was CU adamant in their support of the bill before these safeguards were established through the Stupak Amendment?

And now, Catholics United wants all Catholics to throw their support behind the health care bill — with “full-throated support” for reform. Let’s see why it would be a serious mistake for Catholics to do this.

First, the USCCB has not even done what the CU wants all Catholics to do. We cannot give blind support to a bill that is still in transition. The USCCB is thankful that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment was added to the House bill, but the bishops know that the Senate can change all that -– and in fact the White House has given assurances to pro-abortion factions that it will be pushing to make that change. It is still too early to give our blessing to the bill.

If we truly want a just reform of our health care system, then we must do full and thorough research to uncover what the final bill contains — or does not contain. People like Peter J. Smith and Kathleen Gilbert are working hard to uncover some of the troubling aspects that remain in the bill. At LifeSiteNews.com, Smith and Gilbert have listed a number of problems that still exist with the bill. Many others are working hard to keep up with the changes the Senate makes to the bill. Some of these concerns are summarized below. It is not an exhaustive list.

Will the final bill protect life from conception to natural death?

• Will seniors be subjected to rationed care in an effort to keep costs down? Will this new plan cover services for the gravely ill to the same degree that private sector insurance does?
• Will reform protect the unborn? What happens if the Stupak Amendment is omitted from the Senate version? Will Congress force the bill to a vote even then? Will the CU continue to support reform if that happens?
• Will this bill cover artificial contraception and abortifiacient drugs? Will it fund public school programs that encourage school staff to counsel girls to seek the “help” of “reproductive specialists” like Planned Parenthood?
• Will this bill cover other reproductive services that are not specified in the Stupak Amendment - services like IVF and other infertility services? According to a Q&A at the Center for Reproductive Medicine(CRM), this is anybody’s guess. Sean Tipton, spokesperson for the American Society of Reproductive Medicine believes that infertility may be covered under the new reform bill. He believes that Congress will probably leave out specific wording on the things they want covered the most (like abortion, contraception, and IVF). They will not name these things, but rather leave such reproductive matters to the discretion of the HHS Secretary.

Will this bill help or hurt health care workers?

• Will there be sufficient conscience protection for doctors and medical professionals?
• While there are some safeguards in place, what will happen to doctors, pharmacists and hospitals who are morally opposed to prescribing and dispensing contraceptives?If the Stupak Amendment is omitted from the Senate bill, what will happen to doctors and facilities who are morally opposed to providing this service?
• Will this bill curb unnecessary litigation? If not, how can the bill claim to bring true reform and justice for all?

Does this bill provide access for immigrants?

• Our bishops are concerned because the bill, as it stands, does not address their concerns for immigrants.

Without a doubt, we do have a segment of the population that needs our help. There are those who stand to lose insurance coverage if they lose their jobs or they are diagnosed with an illness that becomes a “pre-existing disease” and renders them uninsurable. There are others who need insurance but who are unable to obtain it through their employers. While we must work to help them, we cannot lose the soul of our nation in the process. Many worry about the cost of this bill, fearing that we will go bankrupt if it passes. That’s not a light concern, but it’s even worse if our nation goes morally bankrupt.

We must renew our efforts to protect the unborn, to ensure conscience protection for medical workers, and to establish coverage for immigrants and safeguard against any reduction in the services for the elderly and seriously infirm. Giving our full support to the bill at this point in the process is a lot like agreeing to sign a contract before it is written.

Let us continue to watch and pray.  We need to hold our politicians’ feet to the fire and take seriously what the Church teaches about life and law. In short, we have to take seriously our moral obligation to be informed and prudent citizens in assessing the full range of consequences this bill could have.

The reality of evil is eerily similar to the reality of holiness. It is hidden in the clothes of daily life, so that its horror is disguised, and the evil that seeks entrance is casually allowed and even ignorantly embraced by those who would resist it if they could see it more plainly. Like a cancer, it does its deadly work undetected until the damage is so extensive as to be irreversible.

God called Abraham, the Hebrew Father, out of pagan, idolatrous people toward an area inhabited by pagan, idolatrous people, their idolatry characterized most grossly by human sacrifices to their gods. God promised to displace them and make Abraham the father of a new nation in their place, a godly people through whom He would reach all the families of the earth. The fulfillment of this promise would begin with a son, Isaac.

Because of his heritage, it would not have come as a surprise to Abraham that God commanded him to sacrifice his only son, the son of the promise, in this new land, for the Canaanites were known to offer such human sacrifices to their gods as were all the surrounding nations. The Lord was simply proclaiming His dominion over all that was Abraham’s in a way that would have been familiar to him.

Obedient even to death, Abraham went to the mountains of Moriah to sacrifice the son through whom the promise rested. In arguably the most shocking narrative in the whole of Scripture, God commanded, waited, and watched while Abraham prepared Isaac to be a burnt sacrifice, and only revoked the command upon the raising of his hand for slaughter.

This revocation revealed a lasting principle: unlike the surrounding peoples’ pagan worship and that to which Abraham had been accustomed, worship of the One True God would not include human sacrifice.

Centuries later, when Abraham was long with God but the Jewish nation he fathered had conquered and inhabited the Promised Land for years, the holy area of Moriah became the temple site (2 Chron. 3:1). Some even believe the altar of burnt offering in the temple was situated on the exact site of the altar on which Abraham intended to sacrifice Isaac to God.

This makes what God’s people commenced in its vicinity more heinous, for at the foot of the alleged mountain upon which God prevented Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was the Valley of Himmon, the Valley of the Children.

Notorious in the history of Israel, this valley included a specific place called Topheth, meaning “to hit,” and it is said that its name signified the drums idolaters beat in order to drown out the sound of their infants’ cries as they were sacrificed to Molech, the god of the underworld.

Interestingly, the prophet Jeremiah delivered a devastating prophecy of God’s complete judgment upon this particularly nefarious idolatry, so that the Valley of the Children and the whole area would be so destroyed by conquering nations that it would be renamed the Valley of Slaughter as it overflowed with corpses, and those remaining would be reduced to cannibalism to survive (Jer. 19).

Later, in the same valley where Israelite children had been sent to “to burn their sons and daughters alive in honor of Molech” (Jer. 32:35), a constant fire smoldered to incinerate garbage and refuse from the city of Jerusalem. Smoke rose from the burning debris in the Valley of the Children day and night so that Hinnom became a graphic symbol of woe, disaster, and hell, the place of eternal judgment. The Greek translation of the “Valley of Hinnom,” is gehenna, a word Jesus used 11 times, and each time it is used in the New Testament it is translated hell (Matt. 5:22; Mark 9:43, 45, 47).

In the United Sates the bodies of our aborted babies are treated as potentially infectious biomedical waste, which also includes human tissue such as tumors, amputated body parts, blood-soaked rags left over from surgery, and single use plastics and disposables. Ninety percent of this medical waste is incinerated, according to the EPA, producing dioxin as a byproduct, a known human carcinogen. And so begins the destruction and cannibalism of judgment:

“Dioxins are environmental pollutants. They have the dubious distinction of belonging to the ‘dirty dozen’ - a group of dangerous chemicals known as persistent organic pollutants. Dioxins are of concern because of their highly toxic potential. Experiments have shown they affect a number of organs and systems. Once dioxins have entered the body, they endure a long time because of their chemical stability and their ability to be absorbed by fat tissue, where they are then stored in the body.

“Their half-life in the body is estimated to be seven to eleven years. In the environment, dioxins tend to accumulate in the food chain. The higher in the animal food chain one goes, the higher is the concentration of dioxins” (World Health Organization).

Though the destruction is slow and hidden, the judgment for the horrific practice of infant sacrifice is inexorable and absolute. The smoke from Topheth, our medical waste incinerators, testifies against our nation’s and the world’s apathy toward abortion, and by association God’s people always suffer the temporal consequences of such policies even as they are persecuted for their protest of them.

It is one of the most abominable acts of idolatry in the Scriptures, the temple of the body desecrated and destroyed by the worship of foreign gods. Yet what is most stunning about the issue of human sacrifice in the Scriptures goes back to the root account of Abraham and his God.

In maybe the most moving prophecy in the whole of the Scriptures, Abraham reveals something unspeakable, saying to Isaac, “God will provide himself the lamb for a burnt offering…” (Gen. 22:8). It would not be Abraham who offered a child sacrifice; in a stunning reversal God would sacrifice His son, His own Self, to be wholly consumed for even the nations and individuals who practiced this evil.

“Abraham called the name of that place The LORD will provide; as it is said to this day, ‘On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided’ (Gen. 22:14). God has provided the solution for this awful evil; we know it is the sacrifice of God’s human Son, “for though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:3-4).

He conquered the worst evil humanity could imagine, yet it was “not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts” (Zec. 4:6). It is at the foot of Golgotha that abortion continues in the Valley of the Children, infant sacrifices to Molech of the underworld, in abortion clinics all over the world within horrified sight of the Cross and the Church.

It is imperative that we continue to denounce the political drumbeat of pro-choice propaganda that drowns out the wailing of the mothers left to suffer, keep vigil at clinics, offer counseling and sonograms and all the tireless work Christians and other concerned citizens all over the world commence in defense of our smallest neighbors. We must.

But if, as Blessed Teresa of Calcutta says, Jesus is in the distressing disguise of these tiny babies considered enough an enemy of society to deserve death, what else can we do to love Him in them? Can we have their bodies treated as other corpses are, and rather than thrown on the burning Topheth, the garbage heap of society, can we also work to have them separated from “medical waste” and offer them a real burial?

Every state and municipality has different requirements, codes and practices. Is there some way, through us Jesus bearers, that we can carry Him directly into the facilities, to request the bodies of these tiny aborted babies, finally cradle them away in tender arms and treat them with love?

The world worships the appearance of youth, but denies it a real existence, seducing children to play at adulthood in innumerable ways through TV and advertising, introducing them to adult issues at increasingly younger ages in schools and other institutions, and robbing babies of the right to life, then dumping the used up carcasses of our children on the trash heaps of society, all strategies of sacrificing their innocence to the underworld.

What is your part in the issue? Do you participate in the political chatter, read about the horrors, but do nothing else? Do you live a holy, dedicated life, so that your prayers and other charity for children are as effective as possible? Can you pray the Rosary for them regularly and commit them to Our Blessed Mother; fast for the weakest of the weak, the ones with no voice but ours; have Masses said for victims of infanticide?

It is an almost overwhelmingly morose state. It seems such an enormous travesty we are almost tempted to do little or nothing and leave it to the activists. But “if you cannot feed a hundred people, then feed just one,” a little wrinkled peacemaker once said, one who was not an activist, but a lover of Jesus in the weakest.

Everyone can do something. If we are not literally and measurably for them, we are literally and measurably against them. We cannot be content with head shaking and derision. What will you do?

On Black Friday groups across the United States will participate in a coordinated effort to raise awareness of modern day slavery and human trafficking. The event is being coordinated by The Institute for Trafficked, Exploited, and Missing Persons and will take place on November 27.

Modern day slavery, or human trafficking, is the use of force, fraud, or coercion to exploit a person for profit. Human trafficking is the fastest growing industry in the world, with revenue totaling between $5 and $9 billion. Because of the hidden nature of trafficking, it is nearly impossible to generate an accurate number of victims; estimates range between 4 and 27 million people throughout the world according to the U.S. Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report. The United States is principally a transit and destination country, meaning most victims are brought to the U.S. to serve as domestic or sexual servants. It is estimated that between 14,500 and 17,500 people, primarily women and children, are trafficked into the U.S. annually.

Victims of trafficking and exploitation are coerced through fear tactics, violence, and a lack of knowledge of the resources available to them. They are forced to provide labor, in often dangerous conditions, for little or no money, serve as soldiers and act as sexual servants. Approximately 800,000 people are trafficked across national borders every year. This number does not include the millions trafficked within their own countries. Of transnational victims, approximately 80% are women, and up to 50% are minors.

ITEMP is a program of The GOD’S CHILD Project, the international charity founded by Patrick Atkinson in 1991. The GOD’S CHILD Project has been working in Antigua, Guatemala since 1991 providing education, medical care, and other critical aid to children and families in Antigua and surrounding areas. Since its inception, the project has grown to serve more than 12,000 Guatemalans every year. ITEMP was founded in 2001 to deal primarily with issues of trafficking and exploitation, which are major problems in Guatemala.
“We believe that every person has the right to live their life free from slavery, coercion, and fear. Quite simply, this is why we do what we do” — Patrick Atkinson, Founder of ITEMP.

The goals of ITEMP are reflected by the mission of The GOD’S CHILD Project: to “break the bitter chains of poverty through education and formation.” By educating victims and providing the essential tools to build an independent life, ITEMP helps to disrupt the cycle of poverty and vulnerability to exploitation. ITEMP does this by working with local authorities and taking custody of minors after brothel and forced-labor raids. ITEMP assists adults as well as children after raids by providing shelter, medical care, counseling, and legal aid. ITEMP works with other programs/NGOs, as well as the Guatemalan government, to better aid victims and increase prosecution of offenders.

While assisting victims is crucial, long-term solutions include educating the general public. Community cooperation is essential in the battle against modern slavery, as prevention is a large part of combating trafficking. Awareness on the part of the public creates intolerance of such atrocities being committed to those who cannot, or do not know how to, defend themselves against exploitation.

The day after Thanksgiving, groups will gather in several major U.S. cities to simultaneously give a voice to those without one. People will take a stand together outside of major retailers before opening early Friday morning. Participants will dress in black and bind their hands to demonstrate the chains that still enslave millions of individuals worldwide. The social awareness event aims to educate people about the issues of human trafficking and give people a way to get involved.

“The beauty of this event is that it is something anyone, anywhere can do. Individuals of any age can participate; families can do it, and groups of friends” — Jason Schmitz, group leader in Boston.

Anyone interested in participating can organize groups in their city, or find existing groups in their area by coordinating with ITEMP. A call to action instruction kit can be downloaded at www.itemp.org/breakingthechains.html. Donations will not be accepted during the event. Those who wish to give can visit the website for more information and other ways to get involved.

With the President, Pelosi and Reid all pushing for some kind of health care legislation, the struggle against Obamacare is far from over.

The Left is furious at San Fran Nan for allowing a vote on the Stupak Amendment, which passed by a wide margin with bipartisan support. Its wide margin of passage makes Planned Parenthood and other abortion supporters even more determined to hold the line in the U.S. Senate, where they have the support of the majority of Democrat Senators and the two Republican Senators from Maine. They will seek to keep abortion in the Senate bill, then win in conference, and then count on Pelosi to deliver a party-line vote—this time without amendments allowed—in the House. As I say, the battle to keep abortion out of the bill is not over. Complacency could cost the lives of many babies.

For the moment, however, the pro-life movement can justly take pride in its political strength. Politicians are nothing if not realists, and they have just been treated to the spectacle of both Pelosi and the President caving in to pro-life pressure from within their own party. Notwithstanding their strident support of federally funded abortions, and despite the anger that their action generated among a large part of the Democrat base, they backed down.

I have no doubt that they will be back, quietly inserting abortion funding in conference and then counting on party loyalty to carry the day, but this will take time.

In the meantime, we must continue to oppose any health care reform that violates the rights of health care workers to freedom of conscience, or which denies the elderly the level of medical care they are accustomed to receiving, with the ultimate aim of reducing their number. (Think “Do not resuscitate.”) Nor should we agree to give permanent federal status, funding, and protection to Planned Parenthood, as the current bill does. Our goal must be to defund the abortion machine entirely.

I believe that the AARP has alienated much of its membership by backing this bill, given that it is today’s seniors who will sacrifice their quality of care to pay for this health care extravaganza. One may say the same about the American Medical Association, the majority of whose independent entrepreneurs do not want to be turned into government drones, forced to deny needed treatment to their patients by faceless bureaucrats. Both of these organizations will undoubtedly see their membership rolls shrink in the future.

As for the American public in general, there is growing skepticism about many aspects of this legislation. Needed reforms such as setting limits on court awards and increasing insurance competition and portability are given short shrift in the legislation. At the same time, its 2,000 pages create dozens of new bureaucracies to decide what kinds of treatments are available and to whom. Even those who are not pro-life have serious doubts about this legislation on such grounds, polls show.

Still, a bill will probably emerge from the Senate at some point. Pro-life Senators will probably even propose an amendment similar to that proposed by Bart Stupak and Chris Smith in the House. But simply banning abortion funding, although a necessary step, is far from sufficient to redeem this huge, indigestible monstrosity of a bill. Still, there will be many chances to propose, advocate, and fight for pro-life improvements during the process of the Senate deliberations and final passage, and the pro-life movement must be engaged every step of the way.

Pro-lifers must decide now if making modest improvements to Obamacare will produce a bill they can live with. I, for one, am not sure how many amendments would be necessary to clean up the bill so that its provisions no longer threaten unborn babies and infirm elderly. A Stupak Amendment is clearly not enough. It includes no conscience protection, and does nothing to prohibit hastening death (see http://blog.aul.org/2009/10/30/analysis-of-life-provisions-in-h-r-3962/). Other shortcomings abound. The House bill, for instance, permanently funds pornographic sex education for all students. It sets up an Institute of Medicine to study and make recommendations about Medicare, which may be the Trojan Horse to introduce rationing into the health care system (see http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/11/04/values-policy-concerns-with-the).

When the Senate finally passes a bill, both it and the House bill will be sent to a conference committee. The conference committee will consist of both Senators and Congressmen and will be chosen by the leadership of both parties in the House and Senate. The committee’s job will be to forge the two bills into one, called the reconciled bill.

Here’s where things get dicey (again). The conference committee, which will be dominated by Pelosi and Reid appointees, will have an enormous amount of discretion. It could report out legislation that bears little resemblance to that previously passed by the two houses. The reconciled bill could contain abortion coverage, for example, even if neither the House nor the Senate bill contained this provision. Or it could have a “public option” inserted, or stronger penalties for employers who do not have insurance for their employees. One insider with decades of experience in Washington puts it bluntly: “Anything can happen in a conference committee!”

The reconciled bill will then go to the House and the Senate to be voted on. This time, no amendments will be allowed. Congressmen must vote yea or nay. You can imagine the kinds of pressure that will be put on the Democrat majority to vote the party line.

This final vote will probably not occur until Christmas, a time when many Americans will be focused on faith and family.

I do not intend to sit out the debate in the Senate, or be distracted from our goal of protecting the sanctity of life. We will continue to urge amendments to improve the bill.

At the same time, I can tell you candidly that, no matter how many amendments are passed, I do not believe that this legislative monstrosity serves the interests of unborn babies, or the elderly, or the rest of us.

I, for one, do not want any part of Obamacare.

There’s something about stocks that turns us upside down. For example, normally when something goes on sale, we tend to buy more of it; yet, when stock prices fall, many investors want to buy less.

This reminds me of Baron Rothschild’s advice to “buy when there is blood in the streets.” Those who heeded that advice last winter and bought stocks on sale during the depths of the selling panic are sitting on some handsome profits now. As it happened, a relative called me then and said, “I just sold all my stocks. I couldn’t stand watching the prices fall.”

Had I been an astute investor, I would have loaded up on stocks at fire-sale prices after that phone call. I remember wondering whether I should increase my modest holdings of a stock that had crashed to multi-year lows, but I didn’t pull the trigger. That stock has risen seven-fold since then. Oh well, at least I didn’t sell it.

The purpose in telling you this is to demonstrate that I am not a stock-market wiz. As an economist, though, people inevitably ask me to predict the stock market. They shouldn’t. In the first place, my interest is in public policy and how to preserve our freedoms. I don’t find a daily study of stock-market gyrations remotely interesting. In the second place, even those who devote their full time to studying markets are frequently humbled when the market confounds their expectations. The reason is simple: individual stocks and market indexes will rise if more people want to buy them than sell them, and fall if more people want to sell. Question: How can anyone know what millions of other people will choose to do on any given day of the week or any year on the calendar?

Now that I’ve made that disclaimer, here is how I responded to a request for a prediction in late spring when the Dow was at about 8,000: Greg Wheatley, the host of Moody Broadcasting’s “Prime Time America,” asked me during a radio interview to predict a range for the Dow by mid-2010. After reminding the listening audience that my prediction was worth what they were paying for it (i.e., zilch), I ventured a guestimate—a range of 11,000 on the upside and 5,000 on the downside.

My sense was that the market was not done bouncing up from last winter’s lows. Recently, the Dow has been bouncing around the 10,000 level. It may or may not climb that last 1,000 points to 11,000. I would say it’s possible, on a momentum basis, but on the basis of economic fundamentals, the market seems closer to a top than to a bottom.

It is important to remember, however, that the paper economy of the stock market is a different animal from the real economy that I study. It is possible that the stock market will continue to trend higher without the benefit of an underlying strong economy. The largest component of our economy is consumer spending (although President Obama and his team seem determined to make government spending number one). This year, total hours worked and total income have fallen and savings have increased, so it’s hard to picture booming businesses sporting rising profits and stock prices.

Furthermore, banks are not lending. For over five months now, bank lending has declined every week. Consumer, industrial, and real-estate loans have dropped a net $216 billion. That represents a 15 percent yearly rate of credit contraction. In the past, credit has always been expanding at the end of a recession.

With these market conditions, where is economic robustness going to come from?

As I’ve written before (here and here), Team Obama is pursuing policies similar to those that FDR adopted during the Great Depression. Even though those policies prolonged the Depression, there were several major bull markets within the horrible bear market of the 1930s. If history repeats itself, it wouldn’t surprise me if we have a severe bear market by next summer. Dow 5000—my off-the-cuff guess of a few months ago—seems unlikely now with the market near 10,000, but I don’t think the stock market is out of the woods yet.

Now, what could blow my “prediction” (I mean, “guess”) out of the water? In the first place, it can be foolhardy to bet against the resourcefulness and ingenuity of Americans. They always find ways to produce wealth, if the government lets them. Also, the Federal Reserve’s injections of massive amounts of “liquidity” (sorry, in plain English, “money”) into the financial system may drive stocks far higher. During Zimbabwe’s recent hyperinflation, Zimbabweans perceived stocks as an inflation hedge; consequently, many stock prices soared, even as hyperinflation devastated their real economy.

Will the same thing happen here? I don’t know. The only thing I know for sure is that Mr. Market will do his thing independent of what economists and financial experts want, leaving a trail of human smiles and tears in his wake.

Good luck, everyone.

We relegated socialism to the “dustbin of history,” but socialism never actually died and in many ways it has actually gained influence. This may sound reactionary, even McCarthyist—but only until we understand socialism the way socialists understand it.

Yes, socialist economic ideas went out of fashion, but socialism has always been more than just economics. We tend to equate socialism with communism, Marxist revolutionaries, and state ownership of industry. But socialism is a much broader vision of the person, society, equality, and what it means to be free.

Karl Marx’s collaborator, Friedrich Engels, saw three major obstacles to the socialist vision: private property, religion, and “this present form of marriage.” Also central to socialist thought is a secular and materialist vision of the world that espouses relativism, sees everything politically, and locates genuine community in the state and not in families, churches or voluntary organizations.

The fall of communism and two decades of globalization did not extinguish socialist hopes. The tactics changed, but the goals remained. Proponents of socialism traded in revolution for the gradualism of the Fabian socialists who encouraged use of democratic institutions to achieve socialist goals. They replaced political radicals like Lenin and Castro with the cultural Marxism of Theodor Adorno or Antonio Gramsci, who called for a “long march through the institutions” of Western culture.

This is the pedigree of Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, and the various sixties revolutionaries who now inhabit positions of cultural influence throughout the West. We are seeing the fruit of their efforts: socialist visions of family, religion, art, community, commerce, and politics pervade the culture.

I am not suggesting that Americans or Europeans live in socialist states. That would trivialize the suffering of those who lived behind the Iron Curtain. Rather, I am suggesting that socialist ideas have transformed the way many of us think about a host of important things. Ideas considered radical only 75 years ago are now considered quite normal and even respectable.

Look, for instance, at co-habitation rates and the number of people who do not believe in marriage or view it as a “bourgeois” institution. Directly or indirectly, they got these ideas from people like Engels and Adorno, who argued that “the institution of marriage is raised… [on] barbaric sexual oppression, which tendentially compels the man to take lifelong responsibility for someone with whom he once took pleasure in sleeping with….” The same-sex marriage movement and hostility to the traditional family follow Engels goal to destroy “this present form of marriage.”

In other realms, we see increasing secularization, religion being equated with intolerance and decreasing religious practice. Look at the common acceptance of ethical and cultural relativism and the fear of making truth claims lest one be labeled an extremist. Look at the unquestioned supremacy of materialist and Darwinist thought that dominates the scientific community, or the political correctness that pervades language. Look at our public school system, increasingly focused on indoctrination rather than education. We joke that the universities are the last bastion of Marxism. But who do we think writes the textbooks that teach primary and high school students? The “long march through the institutions” has been more successful than its early advocates could have dreamed.

Of course it would be simplistic to blame socialism for all that ails the West. But socialism has been the principle vehicle of many of these ideas, carrying them into the mainstream.

So how is it that, after such dramatic failures, socialism continues to allure? Perhaps because, as future pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger, wrote, the Marxist dream of radical liberation still captures the modern imagination.

It’s a dream that will always betray, because sustained liberty requires a certain moral culture: one that respects truth and conforms to it; one that recognizes the inherent dignity and spiritual nature of the person; one that respects the role of the family and encourages a rich and varied civil society; one that acknowledges that culture and religion are more important than politics; one that respects rule of law over the arbitrary rule of men and rejects utopian delusions; one that recognizes that the difference between right and wrong is not determined by majority, consensus or fashion; and, finally, one that recognizes that the ultimate source of liberty is God and not the state.

The fall of Communism in Eastern Europe was one of the great victories for human freedom. But while the East suffered untold misery, perhaps it was too easy a victory for us in the West. We were lulled into thinking that socialism had been discredited, had lost its allure—that capitalist economies and abundant goods were sufficient to satisfy human desires. Perhaps we should have listened more closely to those like John Paul II or Alexander Solzhenitsyn who warned us about an empty materialism, an insidious relativism, and a vitiated culture.

The challenges of socialist thought are real. But there is hope. There is hope in the resurgent resistance to the unprecedented growth of government. There is hope in the millions of families who work hard and in the thousands who make sacrifices for freedom every day. This week we celebrate the victory of freedom and the collapse of applied socialism. Let us not come to a point where we look back with regret that we forfeited such a precious gift. Let us build anew a culture of ordered liberty. Let us learn from those who suffered. Let us recover the wisdom that comes from our faith and our Founders and do our own part to shine the fragile light of liberty.

Sadly, however, one series of battles continues to be ignored.

On June 3, 1942, the Japanese bombed Dutch Harbor, located at the Aleutian Islands, west of the Alaskan peninsula. Three days later, they landed on the islands of Kiska and Attu, culminating in the only battles of the war fought in North America. Many of the men there went through hell.

Remarkably, the battle is barely known.

One person who has not forgotten is renowned World War II historian, Donald Goldstein. Goldstein, a retired University of Pittsburgh professor, authored one of the only books on the campaign, called the “Williwaw War,” named for the freezing, high-velocity winds flowing from Siberia and the Bering Sea, which made service in the Aleutians a constant misery.

“It was strategically very important who controlled those islands,” says Goldstein. The Americans stationed there “kept the Japanese from the West Coast and from invading the U.S. mainland…. From a strategic point of view, you can’t underestimate the situation there. Look at a map! The Aleutians aren’t very far from Seattle.”

In the Aleutians, American troops battled not only the Japanese, but debilitating weather and boredom. To combat the fierce and unpredictable williwaws, soldiers leaned forward as they walked, before falling on their faces as the winds abruptly ended. They battled blinding, waste-deep snow, dense fog, sleet that felt like a sandblaster.

To escape the climate, troops spent hours inside. The boredom was so bad that some drank anything they could find. There were stories of casualties from “torpedo juice.” Morale was awful.

“War is boredom mixed with moments of stark terror,” says Goldstein. “You sit and wait. And then all at once it comes.”

And when it came to the Aleutians, it came with ferocity. Shortly after bombing Dutch Harbor, the Japanese took Attu and Kiska. Thirteen months later, in August 1943, American forces sought to drive them out. Kiska was easy, since Japanese forces had bailed out two weeks earlier. Attu, however, was another story.

Attu was taken back only after a horrible fight. Japan fought to the last man. Facing defeat, 500 Japanese soldiers committed suicide with their own grenades. Whereas Dutch Harbor witnessed fewer than 100 casualties, U.S. burial patrols at Attu counted 2,351 Japanese bodies. Total U.S. casualties were 3,829—549 killed. Some believe it was the bloodiest battle of World War II.

And yet, few Americans have heard of the battle. Notes Goldstein: “Even [at the time] there was hardly any press coverage. If you ask most people today where Attu is they have no idea…. It’s forgotten.”

Do the veterans of this campaign feel neglected?

“Oh, yes,” says Goldstein. “They’re bitter. These guys never got the credit they deserve.”

Many of the unrecognized survivors suffered premature deaths once they got home. One was Andrew Boggs Covert, a tall, lanky fellow who had worked at Pullman Standard in Butler, Pennsylvania prior to the war. Boggs found himself drafted into the Marines Corps as a 30-year-old with seven children. His surviving son, Jim, recalls riding to Pittsburgh to say goodbye to his father in 1942.

It was not a permanent goodbye, as Andrew survived the brutal combat. “He told me about some of the hand-to-hand stuff,” says his son today. “It was traumatic. But he was matter of fact: ‘Do it, take care of it, serve your country, get over it.’”

Still, getting over it was not that easy. Andrew died in October 1966 at age 54.

A survivor who outlived Andrew was Leonard Levandoski of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, a member of the 11th Fighter Squadron, who spent two grueling years at Attu.

A few years back, while writing for a newspaper, I tried to track down Leonard on a tip from the Department of Veterans Affairs: “This guy is perfect for you to interview,” said the press person. “Every year he writes letters-to-the-editor trying to get people to remember what happened. He’ll be thrilled to get your call.”

When I called, Leonard’s wife, Geraldine, answered. “Who is this?” she said slowly. When I gave my name and purpose, Geraldine began to cry. “Leonard just passed away,” she told me. “He waited years for someone to call.”

Many of those veterans have now passed away. The years have slowly faded, with no one calling about the Aleutians. It is about time we remember.