De Pasquale’s Dozen: Ann Coulter - HUMAN EVENTS

De Pasquale’s Dozen: Ann Coulter - HUMAN EVENTS

34

Comments

De Pasquale’s Dozen: Ann Coulter

by Lisa De Pasquale

05/26/2010

This story is first in a series from Lisa De Pasquale. Check back for her story every Wednesday!

Have you ever wondered what movie line Ann Coulter recites in the bathroom mirror? What pop culture souvenir Marco Rubio cherishes? How about the first rock concert Mitt Romney ever attended?

Each week I’ll present 12 questions to a conservative leader. During such an incredibly important political year, some may wonder “Why these questions?” Simply put, anything that reveals a sense of humor, self-reflection, quirkiness or savage wit will make political and cultural warriors more appealing—and thus more persuasive—to the masses.

Of course, the inaugural interview must be with HUMAN EVENTS legal affairs correspondent and most popular columnist, Ann Coulter. She is the author of seven New York Times bestsellers. She frequently speaks on college campuses and at Tea Parties across the nation and writes a weekly column often cited by Sarah Palin and other leaders.

I first met Ann Coulter at CPAC 2000. We had exchanged a few emails, but finally we had the chance to meet among thousands of other conservatives. Since then I’ve been lucky enough to call Ann a friend and mentor. I’m continuously amazed by her mental quickness and loyalty. She’s continuously amazed at the great handbags I manage to find at Target.

Over the past ten years, Ann has sold millions of books and appeared on nearly every cable and network news program. She has managed to tick off liberals (in person) in at least two countries while maintaining a powerfully sharp wit. Read on…

1. If there were a television channel that only showed one movie over and over, what movie should it be?

COULTER: You mean like the Sundance Channel does with An Inconvenient Truth?

2. What’s one of your favorite movie quotes?

COULTER: It's this incredibly sexy monologue by a handsome leading man whose name I can't remember. I don’t remember the whole speech, but the last few words of the line are, "Well, do ya, punk?"

3. In A Clockwork Orange, Malcolm McDowell is strapped in with his eyes propped open and forced to watch images until he was "cured." If you could give President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid the "Clockwork Orange treatment," what movie would you make them watch?

COULTER: The Passion of the Christ.

4. What pop culture souvenir do you own that people would be surprised to learn that you cherish?

COULTER: Believe it or not, Hitler's staff car. Out in my garage right now. It was surprisingly affordable.

5. What's your current “guilty pleasure” non-news television show?

COULTER: My favorite non-news television show is "The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric." It is absolutely hilarious. They have this chirpy, left-wing ninny who pretends she's a real journalist, and...well, you just have to see it—it’s a regular laugh riot every night.

6. Which movie, television or rock star would cause you to lose your ability to speak if you ever met?

COULTER: Bono, because he would never let me get a word in edgewise.

7. What was the first rock concert you ever attended and where did you sit and who went with you?

COULTER: It was a Grateful Dead concert. You don't sit at Grateful Dead concerts and I can't remember who went with me, but at some point he or she began to resemble the love child of Jack Nicholson and Parliament Funkadelic front man George Clinton. Just kidding, I never did drugs—I don't even trust herbal tea. Among my first concerts was seeing The Ramones at the Palladium in NYC. Everyone in the audience was wearing black leather, torn clothes and safety pins, but I was a 15-year old kid from Connecticut, so I was attired in wide wale, lime-green corduroy pants. (and I knew all the words!) The late, great Johnny Ramone, incidentally, was a right-winger.

8. Tell me about a public or private moment when you thought to yourself, "This is what Elvis felt like every day.”

COULTER: That would probably have been during my "free speech tour" of Canada, when I almost got sent to prison for giving a speech. Every time I turned on the TV in Canada it was either a hockey game or me.

9. What are you two favorite non-news websites?

COULTER: The New York Times and the New York Times Online.

10. What’s the coolest thing you’ve been able to do because of your role in the political arena?

COULTER: I got an amazing offer to help a wealthy Nigerian prince once.

11. What question do you wish reporters would ask you? What’s your answer to that question?

COULTER: "What do you think of Keith Olberman?" and "I think he's a girl."

12. Tell me about the moment you decided to enter the political arena.

COULTER: It was a Thursday, I believe, in April. I had just gotten home from kindergarten and I realized that my teacher was just completely wrong on the causes and objectives of the Vietnam War.

---

Miss De Pasquale is CPAC director at the American Conservative Union. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is the nation�s largest annual gathering of conservatives.

Chris Christie tells teacher she doesn't have to teach

AZ State Legislators Team Up With Mexican Counterparts To Challenge SB 1070 in International Court | Verum Serum

AZ State Legislators Team Up With Mexican Counterparts To Challenge SB 1070 in International Court | Verum Serum

Morgen on May 26, 2010 at 4:17 pm

As one of my favorite bloggers would say, it’s come to this (El Semanario via Google Translate):

NOGALES, May 25, 2010 .- To reverse the effects of SB-1070, legislators in Mexico and the U.S. (EU) have agreed to submit an appeal to the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), since this initiative criminalises migration with racial profiling in the state of Arizona.

Amanda Aguirre, state Sen. governed by Jan Brewer, read-after a closed-door meeting in the City of Nogales, “a joint statement announcing the promotion of comprehensive immigration reform” before the U.S. Congress- to enable the safe and orderly flow of migrants, in response to the reality of both nations in labor.

“We will seek to denounce the SB-1070 to the Organization of American States (OAS) through the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (…) in order to determine if the imminent implementation of this legislation violates the human rights of residents Arizona, regardless of their immigration status, “he said.

So not only will Eric Holder and the Justice Department be challenging SB 1070 in federal court, but the law may also be challenged in an international court (IACHR) with the participation of a group of elected officials from Arizona.

There may be precedent for something like this, but if there is I sure can’t think of it. Sure, there were a bunch of anti-war activists who would have loved to bring charges against the Bush Administration at The Hague, but I don’t remember any members of Congress signing up as parties to the complaint.

And where is the U.S. media on this!? This story is in several Mexican news outlets, but I wasn’t able to find a single mention here.

Here’s the full list of conspirators from both sides of the border:

The conclave was attended by U.S. lawmakers: Amanda Aguirre, Linda Brown, Linda Lopez, Manuel “Manny” Alvarez, Manny Ruiz, Martin Porchas, Rick Flores and Rudy Molera.

Representing Mexico: Alfonso Elijah Corichi Claudia, Emma Larios, Ernesto Saro, Guillermo Anaya, Luis Alberto Villareal and Silvano Aureole.

And conservatives are the ones accused of sedition?

Update: It looks to me like this action may have violated the oath of office required of all elected officials in AZ.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of ______________ according to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm).

What do you think?

Update 2: Turns out the Nogales International ran a short blurb on this yesterday, and State Sen. Amanda Aguirre’s leadership role in this is also highlighted on the AZ State Senate Democratic Caucus blog. Which is all the more reason to question why the AP or other media did not pick up on this story.

I haven’t yet been able to locate a full copy of the resolution signed by all the parties, but I will post it when I do.

Dean Martin John Wayne: Everybody loves somebody Sometime

Happy Birthday to The Duke, born this day in 1907.

So Who Is Wrong?

Le Fleur de Lys too: Dunkirk, 26 May, 1940

Le Fleur de Lys too: Dunkirk, 26 May, 1940

It was on this day in 1940 that the British and French Army began to evcuate the mainland of Europe at Dunkirk. In all Operation Dynamo rescued 338,226 troops, however most of the BEF's equipment was lost, but the core of it's fighting forces were saved. They proved to be the nucleus of the Britains defenses, as well as the core of the Free French Army.

"The beach, black with men, illumined by the fires, seemed a perfect target." Arthur D. Divine, rescuer.

"It was the queerest, most nondescript flotilla that ever was, and it was manned by every kind of Englishman, never more than two men, often only one, to each small boat. There were bankers and dentists, taxi drivers and yachtsmen, longshoremen, boys, engineers, fishermen and civil servants. . .

It was dark before we were well clear of the English coast. It wasn't rough, but there was a little chop on, sufficient to make it very wet, and we soaked the Admiral to the skin. Soon, in the dark, the big boats began to overtake us. We were in a sort of dark traffic lane, full of strange ghosts and weird, unaccountable waves from the wash of the larger vessels. When destroyers went by, full tilt, the wash was a serious matter to us little fellows. We could only spin the wheel to try to head into the waves, hang on, and hope for the best. More...

An interesting side story to Dunkirk began on 12 April 1912, just before midnight, when the White Star liner Titanic struck an iceberg and sank. The most senior officer to survive the tragedy was the Second Officer, Charles Herbert Lightoller, (Sub-Lieutenent RNR). During the First World War he was activated and after serving on several liners converted to wartime use, including the RMS Oceanic (a sister to Titanic) he commanded a torpedo boat and was decorated for engaging a German Zepplin. He eventually retired after the war and ran a boat yard with his wife. In May 1940 he probably listened and read with interest about the war with Germany. Lightoller had purchased his own private motor yacht, which his wife, Sylvia, named Sundowner, an Australian term meaning "wanderer". When the call came out for "little ships" to ferry troops from the beaches used "Sundowner" to help rescue soldiers during the Dunkirk evacuation making several trips to France and back. He has always been a personal hero to me. The boat (below) is preserved at Ramsgate Maritime Museum.

Stern stuff these British. "T'was a near run thing... "

No Sheeples Here: Big Labor Wants To Silence Your Free Speech

No Sheeples Here: Big Labor Wants To Silence Your Free Speech

Two major unions, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFCSME) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), will spend close to $100 million to protect incumbent Democrats while the AFL-CIO says it will spend heavily to help Democrats in 60 to 70 House races, but won't say how much it will devote to the campaign.

That’s bad enough but hang on—Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)—have introduced a bill designed to silence anyone critical of what the Democratic Congress has done in the past two years.

Schumer and Van Hollen's bill—the DISCLOSE Act of 2010—would reverse the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision upholding the right of individual citizens, acting in concert with each other in corporations, labor unions, trade associations and independent citizens groups, to pay for TV ads critical of incumbent congressmen during the often-decisive final months of a campaign. As U.S. Chamber of Commerce head Thomas J. Donohue said, the bill "is an unconstitutional attempt to silence free speech. It's un-American and it must be stopped."

As we celebrate Memorial Day, I am hard-pressed to think of a more repugnant or loathsome maneuver by desperate partisans. Our freedom of speech was bought with the blood of those who came before us.

Read more: http://nosheepleshere.blogspot.com/2010/05/two-major-unions-american-federation-of.html#ixzz0p2gtZXM8

St. John's Valdosta Blog: STRAIGHT TALKFROM THE SUNDAY BULLETIN

St. John's Valdosta Blog: STRAIGHT TALKFROM THE SUNDAY BULLETIN

STRAIGHT TALKFROM THE SUNDAY BULLETIN

Fr. Richard Perozich,
Pastor, St. Mary, Escondido

The following is the text for today's "From the Pastor" page of the Sunday Bulletin from St. Mary Church in Escondido:

On February 1, 2009 I wrote to you a longer article to rouse you to oppose the promotion of abortion and to show you where the new government was directing the country away from God toward evil. Here are some excerpts and updated commentaries:

“The first 100 days of a new presidency is the time when legislation desired by the new leader is rammed through the congress without much discussion and over the objections of the minority party. It often is not good legislation, has been brewing in the hearts of special interest groups for years, who now have a vehicle to impose their will on the American people.

“If the special interest groups have their way, the first 100 days will spell the end of days for the american nation as we have known it since 1776. Abominations will be forced on us by the new government, such as which our founders never had intended, and certainly opposed to the Christian life: abortion on demand, homogenital sex, lust in all its forms, euthanasia, stem cell killling, cloning, taxes, oppression of opportunity and entrepreneurs, silencing of faith and free speech among many.”

It took more than 100 days for this government to push most of its anti-God, anti-Catholic agenda, and it still is pushing hard.

Abortion is our god and Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy are his prophets. His sacrifice is the life of infants and the souls of mothers. His priests are doctors who perform abortions. His church is Planned Parenthood and FOCA, (freedom of choice act). His covenant promises rights and freedom for women. It delivers death of infants, permanent damage to the souls of women, of men, of politicians.

Within weeks of taking office President Obama issued an executive order to promote abortion overseas to countries which receive U.S. aid. Secretary of State Clinton visited countries and the U.N. to promote abortion. The Health Care Reform Bill does not contain explicit anti abortion language, only an executive order from the president not to fund abortion.

Homosexual lust is our god and Obama, Bishop Gene Robinson, and the Democratic Party are his prophets. the sacrifice is personal integrity and corruption of the body and spirit. Its priests and priestesses are men who have sex with men (MSM) and women who have sex with women (WSW). Its church is the Human Rights Campaign and other activist organizations, Pride clubs and “gay” and “lesbian” centers. Its covenant offers false promises of equality with those who have normal sexual feelings and inner peace. It delivers disease, prolonged adolescent immaturity, and oppression of the church and good people who live upright moral lives.

Congress passed “hate crime” laws to include sexual orientation which raises homosexual practice to a protected behavior and punishes those who oppose it. Congress, with the president’s encouragement is pushing to promote homosexual predators in the military by trying to end the ”Don’t Ask: Don’t Tell” policy, including the proposed new Justice to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan. Congress and the president are trying to promote ENDA, the Employment Non Discrimination Act to include transvestites and homosexuals so that they must be hired even by religious organizations in spite of religious values and over against the first ammendment of freedom of religion.

Money is our god, and the the wealthy and welfare are its prophets. Its sacrifice is hard earned savings and retirement. Its priests are those taking obscene profits by defrauding investors, and those who choose government money over honest work. Its church is a non-vigilant Securities and Exchange Commission and Congress. Its covenant promises self-reliance and security in wealth or sustenance. It delivers collapse of the economy, unfair distribution of wealth, and a drain on the tax system.

Under the guise of crisis intervention, monies were given to private industries that had to surrender control of their operations to the government. The government has grown so much in its appetite for money, there is talk of stripping churches of tax exempt status to feed the state’s control of our lives. Dawn Johnsen, proposed by the president to head the Office of Legal Counsel, sought to strip the Catholic Church of its tax exempt status because of our teaching on abortion.

Socialism is our god, and Obama is his prophet. Its sacrifice is personal freedom. Its priests are politicians and communist ideological organizations. Its church are legislatures and executive branches in government. Its covenant promises fairness and sameness for all. It delivers power and wealth to those who already possess it and takes away opportunity for those out of power and destroys of the economy and future for others.

“CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.”

Liberalism is our god and the Democratic Party is his prophet. Its sacrifice is freedom, integrity, opportunity, and wholeness. Its priests are the fascist elites in government, education, and bureaucracies, who wish to control others’ thoughts and actions. Its churches are political parties, universities, and corrupt professional organizations. Its covenant promises unbridled freedom for perversion of the natural law and oppression for all who disagree with it. It delivers the breakdown of society, constitutional government, and true freedom for morally minded people, especially faithful Christians.

Liberalism or progressivism rejects traditional values, rewrites history, and is centered on man’s desires not on charity. It substitutes its propaganda for the truth of God, establishes itself as authority and demands obedience to its novelty.

For us Christians, these are abominations, and the people who promote them are truly overcome by evil.

This may not be the change you wanted when you voted for new government, but it is the change you voted for if you did not clearly listen to the evil promises of the new prophets and priests of the new “churches” and ignored the warnings about the new evils that this government clearly promised to impose on America.

The Father is OUR God, and Jesus Christ is His prophet. His sacrifice is the life of His Son Jesus celebrated at Mass. His priests are those ordained and faithful clergy who teach fully the Catholic faith from the Bible and Magisterium, and who celebrate the sacraments of the church faithfully according to its tradition and rites. Its Church is the Holy Catholic Church in which salvation is found in Jesus, the only name in Heaven or on earth by which man can be saved, through Jesus, the only mediator between God and man who saves us by grace through faith in Him and not in abortion, homosexual lust, money’s greed, socialism, or liberalism. He delivers forgiveness of sin and eternal life.

Renewed in Spirit, we begin the fight for the faith and the souls of all in our country and world. We march, telephone, fax, write, protest, inform all those in power of our beliefs and interests to show them we will resist their impositions, remove them from office and employment if they pervert our nation.

We must pray as if it all depends on God, and work as if it all depends on us.

Dick Morris: Sestak Bribery Scandal Is Impeachable Offense

VIDEO: Les Phillip Swore to Defend Against ‘Enemies, Foreign and Domestic’

VIDEO: Les Phillip Swore to Defend Against &#8216;Enemies, Foreign <em>and</em> Domestic&#8217;

Wonder who he has in mind on the domestic front? Here’s the Republican candidate for Congress in Alabama’s Fifth District:

Marc Ambinder predicts that this will be the political ad everyone will be talking about this week. The transcript:

This is the story of two young men.
One fell in with left wing radicals.
The other immigrated to America.
While one played with terrorists and allowed his America-hating pastor to baptize his children, the other joined the Navy to defend his country.
I love America, but President Obama is ashamed of it. I’m going to Congress to help stop him from destroying our nation. And they’re not going to call me a racist.
I’m Les Phillip and I took an oath to defend this country against enemies, foreign and domestic. And I approve this message.

Do you approve this message? Let him know:

LES PHILLIP for U.S. CONGRESS

UPDATE: Now a Memeorandum thread. One of my friends on Twitter said, “I don’t know what’s in the Alabama water but they need to bottle it and pass it to the rest of the us.” This ad was produced by Ladd Ehlinger Jr., who also produced the Dale Peterson ad, which may have just lost its status as Best Political Ad Evah!

UPDATE II: In April, I covered the 5th District Republican candidates’ forum in Huntsville. The primary is June 1 — a week from Tuesday. It’s a tough three-way contest for the GOP nomination, and there will likely be a runoff, which would be held July 13.

LesPhillip-A Story Of Two Men

VIDEO: A Mosque at Ground Zero?

VIDEO: A Mosque at Ground Zero?

Ground Zero Mosque - Rick Barber AL02 U.S. Congressional Candidate

Debating Church and State in Texas

Debating Church and State in Texas
by Ken Klukowski

A battle is raging in Texas over our children’s minds. One of the focal points is the “wall of separation” between church and state. It’s a wall based on a false assumption, one that has distorted religious freedom in this country.

The Texas Board of Education must approve textbooks taught in Texan public schools. Its members are the gatekeepers who determine whether a textbook meets curriculum requirements. That board recently met to approve the next generation of books.

But as goes Texas, so goes the nation, because Texan standards are then adopted for textbooks sold all over America. So publishers take drafts to Texas for consultation and approval, making changes as necessary.

One of the changes that conservatives are pushing is for these textbooks to include a discussion of the “wall of separation between church and state.” More specifically, they are pushing for a discussion of what the Founding Fathers thought of this wall.

That is a worthwhile classroom discussion, because the Founding Fathers never created such a wall. That’s why it’s not mentioned in the Constitution.

On January 1, 1802, President Thomas Jefferson sent a letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, in response to their congratulations upon his winning the presidency. In it, Jefferson referred to a “wall of separation between church and state.” He wrote this in the context of perceived threats the Baptists felt were coming from the state, not the other way around.

After writing that letter, Jefferson went on attending church, at services held in the House chamber of the U.S. Congress. (On Sundays, the Capitol was a church building.) He also went on to approve legislation for the federal government to undertake the construction of churches in the frontier regions, and helping pay pastors to preach in these churches, to carry the Christian faith to the native peoples there.

Clearly, what Jefferson was describing was not a rigid barrier between faith and public policy, but denominational allegiance by the state. As the Constitution says, the federal government was not to “establish religion,” that is, to select a particular denomination as a national church.

That’s all the wall is. And Jefferson was among the most secular of the Founding Fathers, who did not believe in miracles, such as the virgin birth or resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The wall of separation nowhere appears in American law until the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education, when the Supreme Court considered whether a New Jersey law allowing school districts to arrange daily transportation for children to religious schools was constitutional. Although declaring the wall, the Court went on to say that school boards expending public funds getting students to and from religious schools wasn’t unconstitutional—such accommodations were fine.

Later in 1952, the Supreme Court clarified itself in Zorach v. Clauson, saying Americans, “are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being …. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities … it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.”

But in recent decades, this wall has become a hammer used to bludgeon people of faith in a concerted effort to purge the public square of references to faith, silencing those who express faith in a public setting.

With the resurgent interest in the original meaning of the Constitution that began in the 1980s and continues today, using this “wall” as the basis for applying the First Amendment has increasingly been criticized.

One such example came from Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Writing in dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree while still an associate justice, Renhquist wrote, “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the… Bill of rights [was] passed in Congress and ratified by the states. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.”

America got along just fine without this wall for 158 years, and even afterwards. It’s only been in recent years that it has been twisted into a secularizing influence in our society.

These are historical facts. Children should be taught facts in history class.

Ken Klukowski is special counsel with the Family Research Council and coauthor of the bestselling book The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency.

No Sheeples Here: Djou: We Have Sent A Message (Barry, Are You Listening?)

No Sheeples Here: Djou: We Have Sent A Message (Barry, Are You Listening?)

The corporate-controlled media and the Demonrats will try to spin Charles Djou’s winner-take-all victory differently, but the 39-year-old Republican from Fearless Reader’s home district in Hawaii has a message for them.

“This is a momentous day,” Djou told a jubilant crowd at state party headquarters. “We have sent a message to the United States Congress. We have sent a message to the ex-governors. We have sent a message to the national Democrats! We have sent a message to the machine. This congressional seat is not owned by one political party. This congressional seat is owned by the people."

In December of 2009, Neil Abercrombie resigned his seat as congressman to campaign for governor. The announcement made it necessary to hold a special election. The race was on the radar of both national parties. Talking heads and the DNC expected the seat to continue in the control of the Democrats who supported Fearless Reader by 72 percent.

Then, that darned Scott Brown wrenched Teddy Kennedy’s seat from the cocky Dems and, as the Star Bulletin put it, “sensibilities changed.”

Colleen Hanabusa, who came in second in the special election to fill Honolulu's 1st Congressional District with 30.8 percent of the vote, issued the following statement:

“With over fifty percent of the voters in Congressional District 1 turning out in what is the highest voter turnout in any Hawaii special election, it is clear that the people of Hawaii know the importance of this election in ensuring the people of Hawaii are properly represented in Congress.”

Democrats believe the success in Hawaii will be short-lived. Djou will only serve through the remainder of 2010, and another election will be held in November for the next term.

Djou has other ideas. "The people of Hawaii have given us a short-term lease with an option to buy in November. This is not the time for us to rest on our laurels. This is the time to redouble our efforts to bring out change. To do good, to restore our nation to prosperity."

Mahalo nui loa, Mr. Djou.

Whittaker Chambers: The New Deal as Revolution

Whittaker Chambers: The New Deal as Revolution

by Alan Snyder

Whittaker Chambers had a secret. He had worked in the American Communist underground for most of the 1930s. His break from that underground had been hazardous; he hid his family for quite some time before surfacing. When he did, his unique writing talent earned him a place at Time magazine, where he eventually rose to be one of its senior editors.

Whittaker Chambers at His Desk at Time Magazine

In 1939, with the outbreak of WWII, Chambers decided he needed to inform the FDR administration of what he knew about those currently working in the underground. Through an intermediary, he obtained an interview with Adolf Berle, the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of security. During his evening with Berle, Chambers disclosed a long list of individuals who could be threats to the country during a war that he sensed the U.S. would eventually have to enter.

Berle seemed alarmed by the revelations. Chambers was relieved that now the truth would come out. Yet when Berle took this information to FDR, he was rudely dismissed—FDR didn’t care.

When Chambers finally realized the administration was apathetic to the traitors in its midst, he had to reassess what he knew of FDR and his policies. In his classic autobiography, Witness, he describes how this rebuff affected him:

And with astonishment I took my first hard look at the New Deal. . . . All the New Dealers I had known were Communists or near-Communists. None of them took the New Deal seriously as an end in itself. They regarded it as an instrument for gaining their own revolutionary ends. I myself thought of the New Deal as a reform movement that, in social and labor legislation, was belatedly bringing the United States abreast of Britain or Scandinavia.

What shocked Chambers was that he recognized for the first time that the New Deal was far more than a reform movement. It was ”a genuine revolution, whose deepest purpose was not simply reform within existing traditions, but a basic change in the social, and, above all, the power relationships within the nation.”

This “revolution” was not taking the same form as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, but its effect was just as sinister:

It was not a revolution by violence. It was a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking. In so far as it was successful, the power of politics had replaced the power of business. This is the basic power shift of all the revolutions of our time. This shift was the revolution.

Chambers was quite prescient in this analysis. American historians have long noted that in the last half of the nineteenth century, presidents played second fiddle to business leaders. This never sat well with progressives. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson made strides in the shift to power politics, but they suffered a setback in the 1920s under Harding and Coolidge, who were ingrained with the principles of self-government and sanctity of private property.

Then came the Depression and all the wonders that government could perform to ease the plight of the American people. Chambers saw that even though the New Deal was not an overt socialist/communist ploy, it worked in tandem with that philosophy. New Dealers, most of whom would have never considered themselves either socialists or communists, were, due to their progressive policies, fellow-travelers. As Chambers explains,

Thus men who sincerely abhorred the word Communism, in the pursuit of common ends found that they were unable to distinguish Communists from themselves, except that it was just the Communists who were likely to be most forthright and most dedicated in the common cause.

Critics of Witness often howled at Chambers’s association of liberals with socialists and communists. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, they cried. Yet Chambers put his own reputation on the line giving his witness before Congress in 1948, as he testified in the landmark Alger Hiss case. He knew, from personal experience, that the difference between liberalism and communism was in degree only: both put their faith in man and rejected faith in God; therefore, they shared a common worldview.

Chambers Testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities

Chambers summarized the symbiotic relationship quite nicely:

Every move against the Communists was felt by the liberals as a move against themselves. . . . The Communists were fully aware of their superior tactical position, and knew that they had only to shout their innocence and cry: “Witch hunt!” for the liberals to rally in all innocence to their defense.

Some things don’t change: we are still undergoing a revolution by bookkeeping and lawmaking, and we continue to hear the snarls of “witch hunt” whenever this revolution is challenged. What we need now is the same tenacity shown by Chambers. He completed his “witness.” What will we do?

Dems Give Standing Ovation When Calderon Bashes Arizona Law

Arizona Sing-A-Long: Read Immigration Law!

The Last Days of Europe

Rush on Calderon

“E Pluribus Unum” - A Response to President Calderon | Tom McClintock for Congress

“E Pluribus Unum” - A Response to President Calderon | Tom McClintock for Congress

Rep. Tom McClintock gave this speech in response to President Calderon's lecture to Congress. Given in the House Chamber, Washington, D.C. May 20, 2010.

M. Speaker:

I rise to take strong exception to the speech of the President of Mexico while in this chamber today.

The Mexican government has made it very clear for many years that it holds American sovereignty in contempt and President Calderon’s behavior as a guest of the Congress confirms and underscores this attitude.

It is highly inappropriate for the President of Mexico to lecture Americans on American immigration policy, just as it would be for Americans to lecture Mexico on its laws.

It is obvious that President Calderon does not understand the nature of America or the purpose of our immigration law.

Unlike Mexico’s immigration law -- which is brutally exclusionary -- the purpose of America’s law is not to keep people out. It is to assure that as people come to the United States, they do so with the intention of becoming Americans and of raising their children as Americans.

Unlike Mexico, our nation embraces immigration and what makes that possible is assimilation.

A century ago President Teddy Roosevelt put it this way. He said:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

That is how we have built one great nation from the people of all the nations of the world.

The largest group of immigrants now comes from Mexico. A recent RAND study discovered that during most of the 20th Century, while our immigration laws were actually enforced, assimilation worked and made possible the swift attainment of the American dream for millions of immigrants seeking to escape conditions in Mexico.

That is the broader meaning of our nation’s motto, “E Pluribus Unum” – from many people, one people, the American people.

But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of “E Pluribus Unum.” It seeks to hyphenate Americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity, and to elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values and American founding principles.

In order to do so, they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation. In order to do that, they must undermine our immigration laws.

It is an outrage that a foreign head of state would appear in this chamber and actively seek to do so. And it is a disgrace that he would be cheered on from the left wing of the White House and by many Democrats in this Congress.

Arizona has not adopted a new immigration law. All it has done is to enforce existing law that President Obama refuses to enforce. It is hardly a radical policy to suggest that if an officer on a routine traffic stop encounters a driver with no driver’s license, no passport, and who doesn’t speak English, that maybe that individual might be here illegally.

And to those who say we must reform our immigration laws – I reply that we don’t need to reform them – we need to enforce them. Just as every other government does. Just as Mexico does.

Above all, this is a debate of, by and for the American people. If President Calderon wishes to participate in that debate, I invite him to obey our immigration laws, apply for citizenship, do what 600,000 LEGAL immigrants to our nation are doing right now, learn our history and our customs, and become an American. And then he will have every right to participate in that debate.

Until then, I would politely invite him to have the courtesy while a guest of this Congress to abide by the fundamental rules of diplomacy between civilized nations not to meddle in each other’s domestic debates.

Congressman Tom McClintock Tells Mexico To Butt Out

Ray Stevens - We The People - RayStevens.com

Ray Stevens - Caribou Barbie

Ray Stevens - Throw the Bums Out

Ray Stevens - Come to the USA

Response to President Calderon

A-10 and A-20 Veto

Makes me wish that I still lived in New jersey

No Sheeples Here: America: Emasculated By An Ignorant Administration

No Sheeples Here: America: Emasculated By An Ignorant Administration

When high-ranking officials of the United States government will not read legislation of any kind but choose instead to impetuously criticize those who are standing guard over liberty, we, as a nation are in a world of hurt.

Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Assistant Secretary of State P. J. Crowley have sheepishly confessed to not reading the Arizona Immigration Law (SB1070).

As the video I created below will show, there are rebellious dissidents within our borders and within our institutes of higher learning who openly call Americans “frail, racist white people who want to keep us out of this country.”

If, as proponents claim, there are six billion people at the forefront of the revolutionary movement known as La Raza, then yes, we must enforce our long-established immigration laws.

Ron Gochez menacingly warned, “There are more than forty million of our people north of the Rio Grande…there are over forty million potential revolutionaries north of the border inside the belly of the beast. They know we are La Raza, we are professionals, we are educators, we are revolutionary students.”

How truly astonishing it is that the Mexican government and its people believe that the United States exists solely to benefit them. How bewildering it is that this president does nothing to dissuade Calderon from arrogantly preaching to the good people of this nation or allowing Mexico’s president to regard America as its cash cow.

Mr. Obama, put your golf clubs and your community organizer mindset aside and stop emasculating the nation you purport to protect and, for God’s sake, stop being an imbecile.

Blitzer Tried His Best to Hide Calderon Hypocrisy | NewsBusters.org

Blitzer Tried His Best to Hide Calderon Hypocrisy | NewsBusters.org

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdqGkUkUkU

Rush on Calderon

The Cross of Laeken: Grace Kelly on Motherhood

The Cross of Laeken: Grace Kelly on Motherhood

I was rather surprised to find that someone had been searching here for information on Princess Grace of Monaco. She is a bit off topic for this site, but our friend, the Mad Monarchist, has a blog entirely dedicated to the Grimaldis, with a wealth of information on Monegasque princes and princesses, past and present. I encourage those interested to visit.

While discussing Princess Grace, though, I wanted to post this article, published July 30, 1971 in Life magazine. Grace's remarks on motherhood highlight some aspects of her personality that are perhaps apt to be neglected in all the racy biographies and speculation on her private life. Her words ring even truer today than they did 39 years ago.

On a visit to Chicago last month, Princess Grace of Monaco, mother of three, came out firmly for motherhood- and against quite a few other things. Appearing at a convention of La Leche League, a women's group organized to encourage breast-feeding, she urged other mothers to take up the practice, to be "happy in their role and aware of its importance." She breast-fed each of her children for two months, starting with Caroline, born in 1957. "I couldn't think of having a baby without feeding her myself," she said.

The princess also advised breast-feeding as a means to help "combat the current wave of public indecency. Nothing is sacred anymore," she said, "anything goes. Watch some of the commercials on television or listen to some of the songs. Everything is being debased, made cheap. But in the family, if a mother nurses her baby, the other children can see the wholesomeness of sex, the naturalness of it. And that helps them prepare for what they'll see outside the home."

A Roman Catholic, she is firmly against abortion-"any kind, legal or illegal." She fended off questions on women's liberation, but had little good to say about some of the movement's goals-such as day-care centers. "It's a pity," she said, "There seems to be a great tendency to get rid of children, even among mothers who don't work."

The princess, who presumably does not have any baby-sitter problems of her own, is opposed to mothers sharing the child-rearing chores, even with fathers. "Why should they help?" she asks. "It's against nature. With animals you don't see the male caring for the offspring. It's a woman's prerogative and duty, and a privilege." This feminine uniqueness extends to the delivery room. In her own case, the princess asked Prince Rainier not to attend. "I didn't want him there," she said. "I had to concentrate on the business at hand."

On a side note, Princess Marie-Esmeralda of Belgium, daughter of King Leopold III and Princess Lilian, notes with gratitude in her memoirs that Grace kindly helped take care of Esmeralda and her sister during their father's severe bout with malaria. So, I suppose, there is a slight "Belgian" connection to Grace Kelly!

SANCTE PATER: FBI Files: Walter Cronkite Collaborated With Anti-War Activists…

SANCTE PATER: FBI Files: Walter Cronkite Collaborated With Anti-War Activists…

Saturday, May 15, 2010

FBI Files: Walter Cronkite Collaborated With Anti-War Activists…

From Weasel Zippers:


Archie Bunker was right, he is “Pinko Cronkite”…

Legendary CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite allegedly collaborated with anti-Vietnam War activists in the 1960s, going so far as to offer advice on how to raise the public profile of protests and even pledging CBS News resources to help pull off events, according to FBI documents obtained by Yahoo! News.
The documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, say that in November 1969, Cronkite encouraged students at Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla., to invite Maine Sen. Edmund Muskie to address a protest they were planning near Cape Kennedy (now known as Cape Canaveral). Cronkite told the group’s leader that Muskie would be nearby for a fundraiser on the day of the protest, and said that “CBS would rent [a] helicopter to take Muskie to and from site of rally,” according to the documents.
The claims are contained in an FBI memo recounting a confidential informant’s report on a November 1969 meeting of a Rollins College protest group called Youth for New America. The group was planning rallies near Cape Kennedy on Nov. 13 and 14 — the latter being day of the Apollo 12 launch from Cape Kennedy, which President Nixon would be attending — as part of a nationwide Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam. That protest action culminated in a huge march on Washington on Nov. 15.
Just nine months before, Cronkite had delivered his famous on-air judgment that the “bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.” Even so, such tight collaboration between a news organization and the anti-war movement — particularly the offer of CBS News resources to help ferry a sitting senator and future presidential candidate around in opposition to the war — was highly unusual and would presumably have been explosive if known widely at the time. It’s unclear whether Muskie ever actually attended the event.
Rest here>>>

H/T:John in Maine

We are Better than That!!!!!

Newt Gingrich: Obama-Pelosi Regime Is as Great a Threat to America as Na...

No Sheeples Here: BREAKING: A Socialist On The Supreme Court Bench?

No Sheeples Here: BREAKING: A Socialist On The Supreme Court Bench?

Erick Erickson of RedState.com has discovered Elena Kagan’s April 15, 1981 senior thesis and it’s a deal breaker.

The 134-page typewritten document is an exploration of socialism in New York City from 1900 to 1933 entitled To The Final Conflict.

In the acknowledgments, Kagan writes, “The staff members of the Tamiment Institute greatly facilitated my research for this thesis, directing me to relevant collections and aiding me in all possible respects. Sean Wilentz painstakingly read each page of this thesis—occasionally two or three times. His comments and suggestions were invaluable; his encouragement was both needed and appreciated. Finally, I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas.” [Emphasis mine.]

The Tamiment Library is a research library at New York University that documents radical and left history, with strengths in the histories of communism, socialism, anarchism, the New Left, the Civil Rights Movement, and utopian experiments. The Robert F. Wagner Archives, which is also housed in Bobst Library at NYU, documents American labor history. Together the two units form an important center for scholarly research on labor and the left.

Sean Wilentz, the man Kagan profusely acknowledges in here thesis, earned his Ph.D. in 1980 at Yale University. His historical scholarship has focused on the importance of class and race in the early national period, especially in New York City. He is a long-time family friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

He appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8, 1998 to argue against the Clinton impeachment. In his testimony, he warned House members that, if they voted for impeachment but were not convinced Clinton's offenses were impeachable, "history will track you down and condemn you for your cravenness."

Wilentz is married to University of Chicago historian Christine Stansell.

The thesis documents the Socialist Party and labor unions in New York City but the telltale signs of Kagan’s political leanings are found in the final paragraph of the thesis’ conclusion:

“Through its own internal feuding, then, the SP exhausted itself. forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.”

Elena Kagan's Senior Thesis Princeton University

Read more: http://nosheepleshere.blogspot.com/2010/05/breaking-socialist-on-supreme-court.html#ixzz0o6odBZzu

FBI files discuss Cronkite aiding Vietnam protesters - Yahoo! News

FBI files discuss Cronkite aiding Vietnam protesters - Yahoo! News

i May 14, 1:39 pm ET

Legendary CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite allegedly collaborated with anti-Vietnam War activists in the 1960s, going so far as to offer advice on how to raise the public profile of protests and even pledging CBS News resources to help pull off events, according to FBI documents obtained by Yahoo! News.

The documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, say that in November 1969, Cronkite encouraged students at Rollins College in Winter Park, Fla., to invite Maine Sen. Edmund Muskie to address a protest they were planning near Cape Kennedy (now known as Cape Canaveral). Cronkite told the group's leader that Muskie would be nearby for a fundraiser on the day of the protest, and said that "CBS would rent [a] helicopter to take Muskie to and from site of rally," according to the documents.

The claims are contained in an FBI memo recounting a confidential informant's report on a November 1969 meeting of a Rollins College protest group called Youth for New America. The group was planning rallies near Cape Kennedy on Nov. 13 and 14 — the latter being day of the Apollo 12 launch from Cape Kennedy, which President Nixon would be attending — as part of a nationwide Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam. That protest action culminated in a huge march on Washington on Nov. 15.

According to the informant, the group's leader (whose name is redacted in the documents) told the attendees that during a visit to a local CBS News station to drum up publicity for the protests, he ended up in a 45-minute phone conversation with Cronkite.

"[Redacted] told group he had been to CBS Channel Six in Orlando prior to meeting to speak to newsmen about Vietnam moratorium activities. [Redacted] related that while at TV station, Walter Cronkite, nationally known radio and television commentator, spoke to him by telephone for approximately forty five minutes and that Cronkite reportedly told [redacted] that CBS would have thirty six hours of coverage on Vietnam moratorium with 'open mike' to give demonstrators a chance to be heard. Cronkite noted, according to [redacted], that Senator Edmund Muskie would be in Orlando, Fla., November 13 instant for Democratic fund raising dinner. According to [redacted], Cronkite suggested that [redacted] attempt to Muskie to come [sic] to Cape Kennedy to speak at Kelly Park rally to be held November thirteen instant. Cronkite allegedly told [redacted] that CBS would rent helicopter to take Muskie to and from site of rally at Kelly Park."

Just nine months before, Cronkite had delivered his famous on-air judgment that the "bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate." Even so, such tight collaboration between a news organization and the anti-war movement — particularly the offer of CBS News resources to help ferry a sitting senator and future presidential candidate around in opposition to the war — was highly unusual and would presumably have been explosive if known widely at the time. It's unclear whether Muskie ever actually attended the event.

Chip Cronkite, Walter Cronkite's son, told Yahoo! News it's highly unlikely that his father would ever have made such an offer. "It doesn't have the ring of a reliable story to me," he said. "Particularly at a time when FBI informants often told the FBI what they wanted to hear. I think it would be outside of what we know about Walter Cronkite and CBS News' practices."

A CBS News spokesman declined to comment.

The memo is included in 72 pages of FBI files pertaining to Cronkite that were recently released by the bureau. The FBI claimed late last year, two months after Cronkite's death in July 2009, that all its records on the newsman had been destroyed in 2007 — which raised suspicions that the FBI may have deliberately shredded embarrassing files on its surveillance of journalists during the Cold War. The new records appear to be from files that didn't focus specifically on Cronkite's activities but that included mentions of the newsman. Among the other incidents in the newly released documents are a 1966 criminal investigation into CBS News for allegedly airing obscene language during coverage of civil-rights unrest in Mississippi; applications for Cronkite and others to travel to Cuba and China; and surveillance files on subjects who met with or were interviewed by Cronkite.

Here's a screen grab of the document in question:

— John Cook is a senior national reporter/blogger for Yahoo! News.

V for Victory!: May 13, 1917: The Campaign Opens

V for Victory!: May 13, 1917: The Campaign Opens

May 13, 1917: The Campaign Opens

May 13, 1917 dawned upon a world in turmoil. The fratricidal slaughter that engulfed Europe had raged for nearly three years, and had now spread over the whole globe. One month earlier, the United States stepped into the European fray with her declaration of war on Germany. The social and political order of the Old World was being swept away. Two months earlier, the Czar of Russia abdicated, as his country slid toward the abyss of communism. Nor were the horrors of 1914-1918 the worst the world would ever see. The veterans of the War to End All War would not reach middle age before the outbreak of another and even more terrible war. On May 13, 1917, Pope Benedict XV consecrated as archbishop the man who would steer the Barque of Peter through the bloodiest period (to that point) in human history. As this future supreme shepherd knelt before the Pope, three shepherd children in a small plot of pasture land near Aljustrel, Portugal fell to their knees before a luminous vision over a small holm oak.

In 1941, the oldest of these three children, Lucia dos Santos -- now a Dorothean sister -- wrote under obedience in her 4th Memoir:

High up on the slope in the Cova da Iria, I was playing with Jacinta and Francisco at building a little stone wall around a clump of furze. Suddenly we saw what seemed to be a flash of lightning.

"We'd better go home," I said to my cousins, "that's lightning; we may have a thunderstorm."

"Yes, indeed!" they answered.

We began to go down the slope, hurrying the sheep along toward the road. We were more or less half-way down the slope, and almost level with a large holmoak tree that stood there, when we saw another flash of lightning. We had only gone a few steps further when, there before us on a small holmoak, we beheld a Lady all dressed in white. She was more brilliant than the sun, and radiated a light more clear and intense than a crystal glass filled with sparkling water, when the rays of the burning sun shine through it.

We stopped, astounded, before the Apparition. We were so close, just a few feet from her, that we were bathed in the light which surrounded her, or rather, which radiated from her. Then Our Lady spoke to us:

"Do not be afraid. I will do you no harm."

"Where are you from"

"I am from heaven."

"What do you want of me?"

"I have come to ask you to come here for six months in succession, on the 13th day, at this same hour. Later on, I will tell you who I am and what I want. Afterwards, I will return here a seventh time."

The seventh time Our Lady came to the Cova da Iria was to give Lucia a private message in 1921, when she was was about to leave home to board at the Dorothean school in Vilar de Oporto. Her bishop sent her there under an assumed name, among other reasons, to give her a chance at a normal life. Lucia continues:

"Shall I go to heaven too?"

"Yes, you will."

"And Jacinta?"

"She will go also."

"And Francisco?"

"He will go there too, but he must say many Rosaries."

Then I remembered to ask about two girls who had died recently. They were friends of mine and used to come to my home to learn weaving with my eldest sister.

"Is Maria das Neves in heaven?"

"Yes, she is." (I think she was about 16 years old.)

"And Amelia?"

"She will be in purgatory until the end of the world." (It seems to me that she was between 18 and 20 years of age.)

If this young girl from rural Portugal, a place where the faith was still strong, had racked up enough offenses to merit purgatory until the end of time, what is to become of us in this time of weakened faith, with vastly greater opportunities for sinning and a culture that encourages us to yield to temptation rather than fight it?

Lucia continues:

"Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the conversion of sinners?"

"Yes, we are willing."

"Then you are going to have much to suffer, but the grace of God will be your comfort."

As she pronounced these words, "the grace of God will be your comfort," Our Lady opened her hands for the first time, communicating to us a light so intense that, as it streamed from her hands, its rays penetrated our hearts and the innermost depths of our souls, making us see ourselves in God, Who was that light, more clearly than we see ourselves in the best of mirrors. Then, moved by an interior impulse that was also communicated to us, we fell on our knees, repeating in our hearts:

"O most Holy Trinity, I adore You! My God, my God, I love You in the most Blessed Sacrament!"

After a few moments, Our Lady spoke again:

"Pray the Rosary every day, in order to obtain peace for the world, and the end of the war."

Then she began to rise serenely, going up towards the east, until she disappeared in the immensity of space. The light that surrounded her seemed to open up a path before her in the firmament, and for this reason we sometimes said that we saw heaven opening.

Almost exactly ten years after this apparition, a boy was born to a policeman and his wife in Bavaria, where the future Pius XII -- consecrated archbishop on the very day the apparition took place -- had served as Papal Nuncio. That boy was destined to become the fifth successor of the man who had once been the Pope's ambassador to the boy's place of birth, and to take the name of the Pope that had made the ambassador an archbishop; and to steer the Barque of Peter through seas no less turbulent and furious than those through which Benedict XV and Pius XII had to navigate.

Now, on the 93rd anniversary of this first apparition, and the 10th anniversary of the beatification of Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the younger two shepherd children, he is at the place of the apparitions -- the third Pope to make such a pilgrimage -- where he has entrusted and consecrated all priests to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Pope Benedict's prayer before the statue of Mary in the Chapel of the Apparitions:

Holy Father:

Our Lady,
Mother of all men and women,
I come before you as a son
visiting his Mother,
and I do so in company
with a multitude of brothers and sisters.
As the Successor of Peter,
to whom was entrusted the mission
of presiding in the service
of charity in the Church of Christ
and of confirming all in faith and in hope,
I wish to present to your
Immaculate Heart
the joys and hopes
as well as the problems and sufferings
of each one of these sons and daughters of yours
who are gathered in the Cova di Iria
or who are praying with us from afar.

Mother most gentle,
you know each one by name,
you know each one’s face and personal history,
and you love them all
with maternal benevolence
that wells up from the very heart of Divine Love.
I entrust and consecrate them all to you,
Mary Most Holy,
Mother of God and our Mother.

Cantors and Assembly: We sing to you and we praise you, O Mary (v. 1)

Holy Father:

The Venerable Pope John Paul II,
who visited you three times here in Fatima
and thanked the "unseen hand"
that rescued him from death
in the assassination attempt on 13 May
in Saint Peter’s Square almost thirty years ago,
wanted to offer to the Shrine of Fatima
a bullet which gravely wounded him
and was placed in the crown of the Queen of Peace.
It is a profound consolation
to know that you are crowned
not only with the silver
and gold of our joys and hopes,
but also with the "bullet"
of our anxieties and sufferings.

I thank you, beloved Mother,
for the prayers and sacrifices
that the shepherd-children
of Fatima offered for the Pope,
led by the sentiments
that you inspired in them in the apparitions.
I also thank all those who,
every day,
pray for the Successor of Peter
and for his intentions,
that the Pope may be strong in faith,
bold in hope and zealous in love.

Cantors and Assembly: We sing to you and we praise you, O Mary (v. 2)

Holy Father:

Beloved Mother of us all,
here in your Shrine at Fatima I consign
the Golden Rose
that I have brought from Rome
as a homage of gratitude from the Pope
for the marvels that the Almighty
has worked through you
in the hearts of so many who come as pilgrims
to this your maternal home.

I am sure that the shepherd-children of Fatima,
Blessed Francisco and Jacinta
and the Servant of God Lucia of Jesus,
are united with us at this hour of prayer and jubilation.

Cantors and Assembly: We sing to you and we praise you, O Mary (v. 5).