MoeIssuesoftheDay.blogspot.com

Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Friday, January 23, 2015

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day


How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=263&iso=20170120T00&msg=Time%


Getting closer… 30 days
until Spring Training
…Are you beginning to
feel it?








Super Bowl 2015: Updated Betting Odds After Patriots' Deflate Gate Controversy

Even after accusations of cheating, the New England Patriots are favored over the Seattle Seahawks in the 2015 Super Bowl.
The Seattle Seahawks began the playoffs as the favorites to win the 2015 Super Bowl. Despite beating the Carolina Panthers in the divisional round and topping the No.2 seed Green Bay Packers in the NFC Championship, the defending champs find themselves as underdogs against the New England Patriots in the final game of the season.
The betting odds at most Las Vegas casinos favor New England’s chances of winning. Several sportbooks have the Patriots giving the Seahawks one point. The point spread at Sportsbook.ag is 1.5 points, while the AFC champs are two-point favorites at Bovada.lv.
Ahead of the conference championship games, the Seahawks were projected as three-point favorites over the Patriots, assuming both No.1 seeds both won at home and reached the Super Bowl. A day after the conference title games, though, many casinos listed the betting line as a pick’em.
Seattle was not particularly impressive in their win over Green Bay. The Seahawks trailed for most of the game, and needed to score 15 points in a 44-second span to make a miraculous comeback. Russell Wilson threw four interceptions in the contest.
New England won the most lopsided AFC Championship in 24 years. They routed the Indianapolis Colts, 45-7, in a game that was never close. The Patriots outgained the Colts by 188 total yards, and held Andrew Luck to just 12 completions and 126 passing yards.
The Patriots’ win over the Colts has become controversial, since it was reported that New England used deflated footballs that might have given them an advantage over Indianapolis. However, the allegations of cheating have yet to affect the betting odds. A significant penalty, such as a suspension for head coach Bill Belichick, could make Seattle the favorite, but such a punishment appears highly unlikely.
Following their Week 1 game in 2007 against the New York Jets, the Patriots were accused of illegally filming their opponent’s defensive signals. In their next game, New England easily beat the San Diego Chargers, 38-14.
With the Patriots being favored by one point at many casinos, their moneyline has moved from -110 to -120. Bettors that pick the Seahawks to win outright can win the same amount of money that they wager, with Seattle’s moneyline listed at +100.
The over/under has decreased to 48 points at several sportsbooks, but it remains at 48.5 at others. Last year’s Super Bowl totaled 51 points.



NEW POLL REVEALS SOMETHING ABOUT OBAMA THAT SHOULD CONCERN CONSERVATIVES



Tea Party Politics

You would think that as one of the worst performing President’s of all time, Obama might also be kicked down a few notches in the old popularity contest.
Alas, that’s not the case.
Even though his approval ratings were low, 45 percent, he happens to be America’s most admired man in the world.
What about a man who constantly trounces the constitution, and shows utter and total contempt for the rule of  law is “admirable?”
One can only guess, but it probably has to do with constant mainstream media acceptance of baldfaced criminality.
As IJreview reported:
…Gallup polling conducted the week before showed, through an open-ended question, 19 percent of respondents named him as the “most admired” man in America. The number may sound low, but it was far greater than second place Pope Francis’ six percent.
Based on Gallup polling since 1948, the Washington Post put together a graph that shows who America really admires most of all:
Image Credit: The Washington Post
Image Credit: The Washington Post
While sitting presidents consistently ruled the roost for the men’s category, it was former first ladies who took the lead in the women’s category. Sitting first ladies were a close second, with the third place spot going mainly to Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Mother Teresa.
Despite Barack Obama being able to ride that wave to popularity during his tenure, our current First Lady, Michelle Obama, has consistently been beaten out for the title by former First Lady Hillary Clinton.
The BBC reports that as of September, Clinton’s approval rating was low at 43 percent. This didn’t affect her “most admired” results, with 12 percent of respondents naming her to beat out second place Oprah Winfrey (8 percent). This is Clinton’s 13th year in a row at the number-one spot and her nineteenth appearance on the list in that position.
That nearly 1 in 5 Americans would admire someone who has continuously lied and deceived the American people is gravely concerning.
One can only assume that those 1 in 5 are the same people who are on government hand outs and wouldn’t care if Obama was a brain dead zombie, as long as their welfare check came in.
We can only hope the shared sentiment for Hillary Clinton doesn’t translate into a Democratic win in 2016.
What do you think of this poll?



NEWT GINGRICH
Obama Abandons the Real World
The media broadly praised President Obama’s sixth state of the union address last night as a “confident” and “ambitious” speech. But even his traditional allies in the press could not ignore the fact that it was a confident speech completely disconnected from the real world.

Here is NBC's Andrea Mitchell, the network’s senior foreign policy correspondent, on last night’s speech: "I think that on foreign policy, his projection of success against terrorism and against ISIS, in particular, as I said, is not close to reality."

Chris Matthews, the adoring Obama supporter who once said Mr. Obama’s charisma made him feel “this thrill going up my leg,” commented after last night’s speech, "I keep thinking tonight that there is a world out there that he didn’t really talk about.” That’s putting it gently.

Richard Engel, NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, delivered the most devastating analysis of the President’s claims:

“It seems that the rose-colored glasses through which [President Obama] was viewing the foreign policy were so rose-colored that they don’t even reflect the world that we’re living in...ISIS is doing very well, and the strategy is completely disjointed...To sell that as a success, I think was missing the point, maybe even disingenuous.”

Engel elaborated:

“It sounded like the President was outlining a world that he wishes we were all living in but is very different from the world [described in the news], with terror raids taking place across Europe, with ISIS very much on the move. One thing the President said was that ‘American leadership, including our military power, is stopping ISIL’s advance.’ That just isn’t the case...”

“He talked about building support for the moderate Syrian opposition. That effectively isn’t happening. There is no real support for the moderate Syrian opposition. In fact, one military official told me that they are calling the moderate Syrian opposition the ‘unicorn’ because they have not been able to find it. So there was a general tone, maybe even suspended disbelief, I think when he started talking about foreign policy. There’s not a lot of success stories to be talking about in foreign policy right now.”

Even senior members of the President’s own party have been unable to stomach some of the President’s claims. Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this morning described the President’s quotes on Iran as “sound[ing] like talking points that come straight out of Tehran.”

What was striking about President Obama's speech was his inability to describe radical Islamism as a movement.

He continues to focus on geography instead of ideology. He refers only to “violent extremism."

He continues to bounce from terror group to terror group as though they’re distinct threats. The current conversation is about ISIL (or ISIS) in Northern Syria and Iraq.

The President failed to mention Boko Haram, however, which last year killed more people in Nigeria (10,000) than Ebola did in all of Africa (8,000). To her credit, Senator Joni Ernst, in a very short reaction speech, did mention Nigeria as a trouble spot.

Ironically, the front pages of today's newspapers report the State of the Union on one side and the battle in the capital of Yemen on the other side. Yemen is a country President Obama had cited as a model of how we are making progress against “violent extremists”. Today the Yemeni president “cannot leave his house,” according to the Associated Press, because Islamist rebels are holding him “captive” in his home. The country got no mention last night.

The state of the union, on national security matters at least, is a disaster. A president who tries to hide from the threats we face--or worse, to construct his own world in which they don’t exist--is making the planet a much more dangerous place. One with “confidence” disconnected from reality isn’t showing leadership. He’s showing pure foolishness.

Your Friend,
Newt

READ TREY GOWDY’S EPIC TAKEDOWN OF OBAMA’S STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH



By Teaparty Politics
If more Republicans begin to model themselves in Trey Gowdy’s image, there might be a serious shift of momentum domestically.
After leading the investigation on Benghazi and then denouncing Obama’s executive order on the House floor last week, Gowdy decided to unload on Obama after his SOTU address.
Nary a Republican can deny the former prosecutor is firing shots over the bow. Hopefully they learn from his example because it just might work.
Gowdy wrote:
Last year, the President promised he would use his pen and phone to ignore the legislative branch and push through his agenda by executive fiat. We have witnessed one executive power grab after another, setting a dangerous precedent and eroding the constitutional balance set forward by our Founders.
“As the President himself once said, elections have consequences. The most recent one being he must work with the Republican-controlled Congress, rather than spout recycled, failed ideas from past speeches. Americans are looking for leadership. They want solutions. The President has the opportunity to put aside politics and engage with the new Congress. We hope he will.
It’s hopeful that the rest of the congress would take up the cause to live by the constitution.
Yes, the recent number of Republicans elected into office signals the American people want something to change…but it’s up to our elected officials to hold true to their promises.
The saddest part is seeing how cozy many of the established Republicans have become with Democrat leadership.
Yes, partisanship helps, but when it comes to standing up for the law of the land there should be no debate, the constitution wins every time.
Who cares if it ruffles feathers, Republicans need to fight for freedom!
Gowdy’s leading the pack, and it’s great to see.


Reality Star Kendra Wilkinson Demonstrates What to Do When You See a Person Begging on the Street

By Alexa Coombs

Kendra
It’s a conundrum many of us have faced – you’re going along in your daily life when you see an unfortunate person holding a sign begging. Your natural instinct is to feel sympathy and want to help, but you don’t know if the person is really in a desperate situation (some people make a living off of begging!) or is going to spend the money on drugs or alcohol.
But when reality star Kendra Wilkinson is confronted with a mother begging with her child, she has the perfect response:
I’m A Celebrity star Kendra Wilkinson has given a mother and her child $200 to feed her family after meeting her in Ralph’s car park.
The blonde star was heading for lunch at Le Pain Quotidien in Calabasas when she saw the woman and her child appealing for money to cover rent and food.
Kendra, wearing a grey sweatshirt and a black leggings was in high spirits with her friend as they headed out for lunch.
The woman, who had her sleeping baby strapped to her chest, and carried a sign with the appeal, later showed a card from Ralph’s grocery store which was reportedly for a $200 gift card.
A gift card for a grocery store is the perfect way to help someone out who is struggling while ensuring that the money goes to food for their family in an immediate way.
Way to go, Kendra!

At a speech this week at the sold-out South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention, conservative hero Dr. Ben Carson shared his important prescription with America.
Beyond the issues of Obama’s tax increases, socialized healthcare, and bigger government, Dr. Carson is focusing like a laser on one thing: ELIMINATING THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS!)
“We need to do something about taxes. There’s no question about that. We have a horrendous tax structure. It’s too complex,” Carson told the convention. “Nobody can comply with it and it’s unfair. We need something that is equally fair across the spectrum for everybody and that means either a flat tax or a fair tax.”
“The important thing is that whatever we come up with, it needs to eliminate the IRS,” added Dr. Carson.
The polling is on Dr. Carson’s side. Approximately 62% of Americans support the flat tax, which would charge everyone the same percentage of tax – regardless of income. This would effectively eliminate the IRS and all the damage their endlessly complicated regulations do to America’s economy. Instead, a fair – and low – tax rate would be collected by the U.S. Treasury.
Do you support Dr. Carson’s plan to eliminate the IRS? Please leave us a comment and tell us what you think!




The truth about Islam our elites willfully ignore
To many in the Muslim world, the United States is “the great Satan.” Nevertheless, there is no place safer and more prosperous in the world for a Muslim to live than right here.
Why is that?
It’s because there is something fundamental about Islam we have chosen to ignore due to political correctness. This truth is so self-evident, I find myself nodding my head in agreement with Bill Maher — someone whose worldview is the polar opposite of mine — whenever he speaks on the subject of the West and Islam.
This truth is that Islam has literally been at war with others and itself from the very beginning. It’s founder, Muhammad, spent the last two decades of his life in almost constant warfare. Unlike Christ, who willingly gave up his own life to pay the penalty for the sins of others, Muhammad died taking the lives of others who would not willingly submit to Allah.
This is historical fact.
Since Muhammad left no obvious heir, his followers immediately broke down into rival camps — our modern-day Sunnis and Shiites — that have been warring with each other since long before the Holy Roman Empire gave birth to what we now know as Western Civilization. Furthermore, one of the rationales for forming the Holy Roman Empire in the first place was to combat the Muslim invasion of Europe.
This is another historical fact.
Much of what we today call the “Muslim world” was originally a key component of the Christian world. In fact, the term “Christians” was first applied to Jesus’ followers in Syria. The apocalyptic Book of Revelation begins with letters to seven churches in what was then called Asia Minor, which is our modern-day Turkey. Some of the oldest enclaves of Christianity were in places like Egypt and Lebanon, but their numbers dwindled considerably throughout the centuries due to violent Islamic conquest of those regions.
This, again, is historical fact.
The first overseas war in our nation’s history was against Muslims known as the Barbary Coast Pirates, whose ambassador admitted to Thomas Jefferson they were raiding our ships because “it was their right and duty to make war upon (infidels) wherever they can be found” in the name of Muhammad. The line from the Marine’s hymn “to the shores of Tripoli” is a reference to this war. So our nation faced Islamic jihad long before we discovered Middle Eastern oil and started meddling in their affairs, contrary to the misguided view of history often espoused by Ron Paul.
Once more, this is historical fact.
Islam has never established a culture that both installed sharia law and recognized individual freedoms. Those that tried faced conquest from the caliphate (see Ottoman Empire of yesteryear and ISIS of today), or incursions from their own radicals for betraying the faith.
Finally, this is not only a fact of history but a fact of our right now.
There is no place in the world today where Islam dominates the culture and mankind is truly free, which is why our politically correct elites often declare Islam is in need of its own Reformation. However, what they don’t understand, because they ignore history (and thus reality) in favor of their own confirmation bias, is that violence within Islam is its Reformation.
If you have truly studied the Koran you know why. There is inspiration in the Koran, and there is ugliness, too. Like Allah turning the Jews into apes and pigs, and the numerous calls to wage war on infidels. And you don’t have to look hard to find it. This confusion within the Koran creates confusion within Islam. As people who seek to spread Allah’s message peacefully, and those who do so by any means necessary, can honestly call upon passages from the same book to justify their actions. Attempts by our politically-correct leaders to divorce violence from Islam only emboldens the jihadists to kill all the more to fight for the purity of their faith, just as the Koran demands.
Political correctness, which embraces moral relativism, will quickly respond with all the blood spilled within Christianity by Protestants and Catholics in the past. However, the reason we haven’t seen that happen in the United States is our Founding Fathers learned from that history, and established a civilization based on individual rights. That your rights don’t come from a group identity, class distinction or government. That you have rights no one can take away from you, because you were made as an individual in the image of the Creator, who is where our rights come from.
It is impossible to establish a society within a Muslim world on such a premise, because Islam doesn’t champion the individual but the group. The world is simply divided into two camps — believers and unbelievers. And unlike the New Testament, which is clear a Christian is to treat others as he would like to be treated, there are several places where the Koran makes it quite clear unbelievers are less than second-class citizens.
Until we are willing to remove our politically correct blinders and objectively acknowledge history, as well as the reality of the worldview we’re up against, discussing solutions to this dilemma is pointless.
The first solution is to acknowledge the truth. Any so-called “solution” that ignores the truth is just going to get more people killed.


Why Everyone Should Be Terrified By The GOP’s Abortion Bill Debacle

This level of incompetence and cowardice should alarm us all.

Today marks the 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court legalizing abortion on demand throughout pregnancy. The pro-life movement commemorates this day with marches, worship services and lobbying for bills to protect unborn children. Pro-lifers were promised by the Republican leaders they just helped elect and re-elect that the House of Representatives would pass a bill today banning most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, a point after which infants can feel pain and survive if born prematurely.
The legislation has been passed by the House in the previous Congress and is extremely popular in national polling. “One of the clearest messages from Gallup trends,” the polling firm reported, “is that Americans oppose late-term abortion.” A Washington Post/ABC survey showed that 64 percent of Americans favor limiting abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy or earlier. When just women were asked, the figure jumped to 71 percent. Such measures are popular among independents and Americans of various income levels.
Quinnipiac even asked detailed questions about the bill last go-around:
As you may know, in 2013 the House of Representatives approved legislation that would ban virtually all abortions nationwide after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape and incest that are reported to authorities. Would you support or oppose such legislation?
Sixty percent of voters said they would support it, while 33 percent said they were opposed. Even Democrats were evenly divided (46 percent to 47 percent) on the question. We’re one of just a small handful of countries, including notorious human rights violators North Korea and China, that allow late-term abortion.
And yet somehow the Republicans managed to make a disaster of passing the bill. Instead of passing the legislation and sending it to the Republican-controlled Senate, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was pulled at the last minute and replaced with a bill that bans taxpayer funding of abortion.
What in the h-e-double-hockey-sticks just happened? It takes a special combination of incompetence and cowardice to miss an easy lay-up like this, but apparently the new Republican Congress has it in spades.
Even if you’re not one of the majority of Americans who want to protect these children in the womb, this debacle should concern you. Here are a few reasons why.

They don’t have the cojones to fight.

If Republicans can’t pass wildly popular legislation protecting innocent unborn children, what’s going to happen when they face difficult legislative battles? It’s best to view this as a very simple test for House Republicans. A test they failed miserably.
In an essay at National Affairs, Michael Needham looks at the contrast between the grassroots and party establishment. He talks about the fight over the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, a fund for corporate welfare. The establishment fought against the grassroots tooth and nail in order to keep the bank. There have been similar fights over agriculture subsidies and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s influence in the housing market. The moneyed interests fight against the conservative insurgents — and the donor class usually wins. Needham asks:
Given the enormous challenges facing the nation, why bother with "small" issues like corporate welfare and concomitant insider politics? Why pick these fights with the donor base?

As the Tea Party sees it, if conservatives can't stand up for sound policy on "easy" fights like these — despite their relative insignificance compared to issues like entitlement reform — the Republican Party is unlikely to have the fortitude to take on the greatest challenges the country faces. More importantly, any party that contemplates cutting back welfare for needy individuals and families but embraces corporate welfare for the powerful lacks the moral authority to urge sacrifice of any sort.
Exactly. How will the Republicans lead the battle to fight against Obamacare if they’re not willing to go against the insurance lobby on even a small issue? Whether the issue is a legitimate campaign against the dehumanization of the unborn, higher education reform or an actual attempt to thwart the growth of the administrative state, a Republican Party unable to accomplish an easy task is a Republican Party that will be completely incompetent and worse than useless in a big battle.

Sabotaging entire movements for nothing

Two of the representatives who caused the biggest stink about the bill were Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina and Jackie Walorski of Indiana. Last week, Ellmers said she didn’t think it was a good idea to vote on the legislation so early in the session (an argument that makes no sense, but let’s put that aside). Yesterday the women pulled their sponsorship of the bill over what they said were concerns over the rape reporting requirement. And yet here are both women speaking in favor of this exact same legislation two years ago:
These women are claiming to all of a sudden be concerned about the reporting requirement — the requirement that has nearly two-to-one support among voters and the one they had no problem with just a couple of years ago. This reporting requirement would keep late-term abortion doctors like Kermit Gosnell or Leroy Carhart from simply checking a box before going ahead with the procedure. Besides, it’s one thing to seek an exception to abortion laws for victims of rape, and entirely another to think that exception must be extended until the baby exits the birth canal. This bill wouldn’t have a reporting requirement for abortions in the first five months of pregnancy.
In fact, even Democrats who think late-term abortion should be legal with no restrictions didn’t make an issue of the reporting requirement in the last two elections. Last year, support for late-term abortion hurt Democratic candidates. But now Ellmers created a controversy where non existed, hereby handing Democrats a way to fight a broadly popular bill.
\This sabotage of the pro-life movement over what may have been a power struggle happens at a time when many pro-life activists have grown weary of being used by the GOP for electoral victory only to be forgotten weeks later when it’s time to vote.
Pro-lifers aren’t unfamiliar with such betrayals but as more and more grassroots voters are learning that the Republican Party is loyal to corporate interests when it counts while giving weak lip service to the base when it doesn’t, the rift widens.

They have zero public relations skills.

It’s not news to anyone that our media are supportive of abortion rights and biased against those who support the rights of the unborn. The media carry quite a bit of water for the pro-choice movement. So, for example, we didn’t see any articles about how radical and extreme — relative to popular opinion — opposition to the bill is. But as soon as Ellmers pulled her stunt, here were the headlines:
National Journal: GOP Leaders Pull Abortion Bill After Revolt by Women, Moderates
Washington Post: Abortion bill dropped amid concerns of female GOP lawmakers
MSNBC: GOP women reject abortion bill, end debate
CNN: House GOP leaders cave on abortion bill
Politico: GOP stumbles over abortion bill
Huffington Post: GOP Congresswomen Get Cold Feet On Anti-Abortion Bill
As the kids used to say, “Smooth move, Ex-Lax. What are you going to do for an encore? Gargle peanut butter?” (NB: This made us laugh in the 1980s. I can’t explain.)
But seriously, it’s one thing to have to fight a hostile media that loves abortion. It’s entirely another to score a deciding own goal against a weak opponent.
Only Republicans could take a bill with two-to-one support and manufacture headlines about it being controversial and opposed by women.
As a bonus, these stories include reports that Ellmers was worried about how the bill would play among women and millennials.
Newsflash to the geniuses in her policy shop: there are few issues the Republicans can have with as much support, much less as much passionate support. If you’re cowering in fear on popular stuff, what are you going to do when the going gets tough?

They have no strategy for everything that needs to be accomplished.

It’s hard to tell exactly what caused the breakdown but it’s easy to see the leadership had no coherent strategy for passing this legislation. I don’t care if the folks who fought the bill at the last minute were inventing excuses, had completely legitimate grievances, or were just bored. At some point, it’s the job of leadership to not have hugely embarrassing debacles that destroy goodwill between key constituents and lawmakers. At some point leadership shouldn’t reveal to the world that it couldn’t organize a shoe closet.
The job of leadership is to make sure disasters like this don’t happen. If they let it happen on easy legislation that is broadly popular (outside of American newsrooms, at least), what are they going to do when they need to really whip a vote on something unpopular in member districts?
If leadership isn’t giving female legislators the authority and influence they seek on this issue, rectify that. But everyone needs to get their act together and to get it together quickly. If this really was just a completely botched power play at the expense of unborn children and their supporters, the people responsible should pay consequences. Names should top a short list of incompetent politicians who should be kindly asked not to run for any office ever again. Those on the short list should be given the full understanding that failure to heed this warning will result in a vigorous primary fight.
The leadership needs to fix their internal and external communications and do some remedial training for members who need basic advice such as, “do not shoot yourself in the foot,” and “do not needlessly anger the one group of Americans not livid with us at the moment.” Maybe even, “learn how to do a power play that doesn’t take down your whole party with you.”
As my colleague David Harsanyi has noted, we have a Republican Congress that doesn’t believe it’s competent enough to make a case against infanticide. That’s bad news for unborn children and their mothers. And it’s bad for everyone else, too.

Pope takes on climate change

This article originally appeared on heartland.org.

Pope takes on climate change

Pope Francis has decided to make fighting global warming an important papal cause in 2015. At the close of December 2014, the press was abuzz with news the pope plans to issue an encyclical to the world’s Catholic bishops concerning climate change.
The pontiff praised the UN’s climate treaty efforts in Lima, Peru and seems intent on encouraging the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics to take up the battle against climate change. The Pope reportedly plans to address the 2015 Paris UN climate conference to pressure world leaders to adopt a strong climate agreement.
The Vatican Pontifical Academy of Sciences may be behind the pope’s rising interest in global warming as a moral and political cause. In a December 27 statement, Chancellor Bishop Marcelo Sorondo said, “Our academics supported the Pope’s initiative to influence next year’s crucial decisions. The idea is to convene a meeting with leaders of the main religions to make all people aware of the state of our climate and the tragedy of social exclusion.”
Church and Climate
The pope’s actions follow recent Church efforts concerning global warming. In 2001 the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a public statement calling for thoughtful dialogue and prudent action on climate change, and in 2011 Pope Benedict XVI supported international climate action taking into account the needs of the world’s poor.
Depending on the focus of his encyclical, Francis could take Catholic leadership on the issue to a higher level, as encyclicals concern only the most significant issues. They are one of the three most important documents issued by the pope, the others being a Papal Bull and an Apostolic Constitution.
Father Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, says he doesn’t believe the pope will break bold new ground concerning global warming. Rather, he believes the Pope will focus on the moral teachings of the church regarding the proper role of humans in the environment.
“I fully expect Francis to focus on the moral and theological questions surrounding humanity’s relationship to the environment,” he said. “There may also be some prudential recommendations which some will no doubt take issue with, and even Catholics are free to do so on such prudential vs. theological matters.”
He added, “The encyclical’s most important role is to offer the theological and moral teaching, not scientific analysis, and that’s where I expect there will be continuity with previous papal teaching on this subject.”
Cautionary Words
E. Calvin Beisner, founder of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, expressed concern misinformation about climate science is leading the pope to misplace priorities. “There’s no doubt in my mind that Pope Francis means well. Unfortunately, he’s badly misinformed on the climate science and energy economics,” Beisner said. “He and his advisors need to learn the empirical evidence, which falsifies the models behind fears of dangerous warming, and the energy economics, which show ‘Green’ fuels will be unaffordable for the world’s poor for generations to come, leaving them trapped in poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death it brings,” he added.
“Fighting global warming makes little sense for the rich. It’s fatal for the poor.”


G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Blog Archive

issues