Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Thursday, February 27, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 720)
Opinion

PPFA-President-Cecile-Richards-Getty

Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards testifies at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Capitol Hill. (Photo Getty)

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s questioning of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards exposes the depravity and dishonesty of her organization.

Richards and her colleagues act like cornered criminal defendants whose only defense is to dissemble and counterattack their accusers, for the truth is not in them.

Planned Parenthood piously holds itself out as a benevolent, quasi-sacred entity, selflessly devoted to improving women’s health. It has consistently denied critics’ claims that it performs no mammograms, but at the hearing, Richards unremorsefully conceded the charge and pretended she never said otherwise. And it’s not just about mammograms. Americans United for Life has shown that under Richards’ leadership, there has been a marked decrease in cancer screening and breast health services while there has been an increase in abortion.

Though Planned Parenthood peddles the misleading statistic that abortion only constitutes 3 percent of its health services, Richards indifferently confessed that abortion generates 86 percent of its revenue, excluding federal subsidies.

Richards wants us to believe this is a partisan witch hunt. In an interview, she attacked her critics, saying some of their comments were “pretty sexist … because they didn’t have anything else to talk about.” “They are obsessed,” she said, “with ending access to reproductive health care for women in America.”

How are they sexist? Simply because some of her male interrogators interrupted her and spoke in harsh tones — as if they don’t do that to everyone in their hot seat, regardless of gender.

Sorry, but Richards’ critics have legitimate concerns, and they don’t want to diminish women’s access to health care. If anything, they want to increase it by reallocating federal funds from the abortion factory to the thousands of community health centers that focus exclusively on women’s health concerns and do not perform abortions.

As for Richards’ claim that the GOP wants to end women’s access to “reproductive health care,” it’s time we scrapped the euphemism. Abortion is rarely about women’s health. It’s overwhelmingly about the voluntary termination of a mother’s pregnancy and the killing of an innocent human life. It is the opposite of “reproductive” because it exterminates babies, and instead of “caring” for the mothers, it often harms them, physically and psychologically.

Richards has it exactly wrong — on purpose. The GOP isn’t obsessed. Yes, many do want to end abortions. I certainly plead guilty to that, except in the rare case of saving the mother’s life. But in trying to eliminate Planned Parenthood’s federal funding, we have no expectation of ending all abortions. As others have reported, there are more than 1,500 facilities besides those of Planned Parenthood — abortion clinics, other clinics, hospitals and doctors’ offices — that perform abortions.

It is Richards and her fellow pro-abortionists who are obsessed — obsessed with maximizing the killing of babies for profit yet representing themselves as a philanthropic organization dedicated to women’s health. At least one former official of Planned Parenthood claims that it provided bonuses to employees for “selling” a certain number of abortions. And our society looks down on barbaric ancient cultures for practicing child sacrifice?

But the GOP does want to eliminate the unconscionable $528 million of taxpayer money the federal government channels to Planned Parenthood every year. Planned Parenthood insists these funds are not used for abortions, but former company officials say the funds are commingled. Even if that were not true, it’s laughable to suggest that the funding of non-abortion services does not financially benefit the abortion side of this shady outfit.

President Obama and the Democratic Party oppose limitations on abortion at almost every stage of pregnancy, fearing that any inroads by opponents, no matter how justified, would begin a slippery slope leading to reductions in the savage practice — a practice they say they want to make “rare.” This extreme position compels them to misrepresent the facts and their opponents’ arguments.

When The Center for Medical Progress uncovered Planned Parenthood’s harvesting of human organs, Planned Parenthood argued the videos had been doctored — because it had no defense to the underlying claims. When Carly Fiorina referred to a grotesque video, the organization tried to make the story about her alleged fabrication — because it had no defense to the underlying practice. When asked about the damning videos, the White House says it hasn’t even watched them — because it has no defense for what the videos depict.

Slowly but surely, the disinfecting light of truth is illuminating these horrors. As the truth continues to emerge, should we expect the entire abortion industry to adopt the line of comedian Margaret Cho? She recently tweeted: “I do not believe in a God who would consider abortion a sin. God created abortion. As he did all of us. God created choice for all to DECIDE.”

Well, Margaret, actually, not “all” are deciding — namely, the babies who are being killed.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's

Video

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the Iranian nuclear deal during his speech at the U.N. General Assembly, ripping them over their “deafening silence.”

“70 years afte the murder of six million Jews, Iran’s leaders threaten to destroy my country, to murder my people and yet the respons from this body, from nearly every one of the governments represented here, the response from every one of you here, utter silence,” he said. “Deafening silence.”

Netanyahu said nothing, simply staring intensely and silently at the crowd of world leaders for nearly a minute.

Read Also — Netanyahu: “When Will the U.N. Finally Check Its Anti-Israel Fanaticism at the Door?”

“If Iran’s rulers were working to destroy your countries, perhaps you’d be somewhat less enthusiastic about the deal,” he said. “If Iran’s terror proxies were firing thousands of rockets at your cities, perhaps you’d be more measured in your praise.”

“And if this deal were unleashing anuclear arms race in your neighborhood perhaps you would be more reluctant to celebrate.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the

Policy

US-VOTE-REPUBLICANS-DEBATE

Republican presidential candidates arrive on stage for the Republican presidential debate on August 6, 2015 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. From left are: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; real estate magnate Donald Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. AFP PHOTO / MANDEL NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

I’m pleasantly surprised by the tax plans proposed by Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and Donald Trump. In varying ways, all these candidates have put forth relatively detailed proposals that address high tax rates, punitive double taxation, and distorting tax preferences.

But saying the right thing and doing the right thing are not the same. I just did an interview focused on Donald Trump’s tax proposal, and one of my first points was that candidates may come up with good plans, but those proposals are only worthwhile if the candidates are sincere and if they intend to do the heavy lifting necessary to push reform through Congress.

[brid video=”16793″ player=”1929″ title=”Dan Mitchell Urging GOP Candidates to Produce Spending Restraint Plans”]

Today, though, I want to focus on another point, which I raised starting about the 0:55 mark of the interview.

For the plans to be credible, candidates also need to have concomitant proposals to restrain the growth of federal spending.

I don’t necessarily care whether they balance the budget, but I do think proposals to reform and lower taxes won’t have any chance of success unless there are also reasonable plans to gradually shrink government spending as a share of economic output.

As part of recent speeches in New Hampshire and Nevada, I shared my simple plan to impose enough spending restraint to balance the budget in less than 10 years. But those speeches were based on politicians collecting all the revenue projected under current law.

By contrast, the GOP candidates are proposing to reduce tax burdens. On a static basis, the cuts are significant. According to the Tax Foundation, the 10-year savings for taxpayers would be $2.97 trillion with Rand Paul’s plan, $3.67 trillion under Jeb Bush’s plan, $4.14 trillion with Marco Rubio’s plan, all the way up to $11.98 trillion for Donald Trump’s plan.

Those sound like very large tax cuts (and Trump’s plan actually is a very large tax cut), but keep in mind that those are 10-year savings. And since the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the federal government will collect $41.58 trillion over the next decade, the bottom line, as seen in this chart, is that all of the plans (other than Trump’s) would still allow the IRS to collect more than 90 percent of projected revenues.

2016 presidential candidates tax plans

Source: Freedom and Prosperity

Now let’s make the analysis more realistic by considering that tax cuts and tax reforms will generate faster growth, which will lead to more taxable income. And the experts at the Tax Foundation made precisely those calculations based on their sophisticated model. Here’s an updated chart showing 10-year revenue estimates based on “dynamic scoring.”

2016 presidential candidates tax plan

The Trump plan is an obvious outlier, but the proposals from Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio all would generate at least 96 percent of the revenues that are projected under current law. Returning to the original point of this exercise, all we have to do is figure out what level of spending restraint is necessary to put the budget on a glide path to balance (remembering, of course, that the real goal should be to shrink the burden of spending relative to GDP).

But before answering this question, it’s important to understand that the aforementioned 10-year numbers are a bit misleading since we can’t see yearly changes. In the real world, pro-growth tax cuts presumably lose a lot of revenue when first enacted. But as the economy begins to respond (because of improved incentives for work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship), taxable income starts climbing.

Here’s an example from the Tax Foundation’s analysis of the Rubio plan. As you can see, the proposal leads to a lot more red ink when it’s first implemented. But as the economy starts growing faster and generating more income, there’s a growing amount of “revenue feedback.” And by the end of the 10-year period, the plan is actually projected to increase revenue compared to current law.

rubio lee tax plan

Source: Tax Foundation

So, does this mean some tax cuts are a “free lunch” and pay for themselves? Sound like a controversial proposition, but that’s exactly what happened with some of the tax rate reductions of the Reagan years.

To be sure, that doesn’t guarantee what will happen if any of the aforementioned tax plans are enacted. Moreover, one can quibble with the structure and specifications of the Tax Foundation’s model. Economists, after all, aren’t exactly famous for their forecasting prowess. But none of this matters because the Tax Foundation isn’t in charge of making official revenue estimates. That’s the job of the Joint Committee on Taxation, and that bureaucracy largely relies on static scoring. Which brings me back to today’s topic. The good tax reform plans of certain candidates need to be matched by credible plans to restrain the growth of federal spending.

Fortunately, that shouldn’t be that difficult. I explained last month that big tax cuts were possible with modest spending restraint. If spending grows by 2 percent instead of 3 percent, for instance, the 10-year savings would be about $1.4 trillion. And since it’s good to reduce tax burdens and also good to restrain spending, it’s a win-win situation to combine those two policies. Sort of the fiscal equivalent of mixing peanut butter and chocolate in the famous commercial for Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups.

P.S. Returning to my interview embedded above, I suppose it’s worthwhile to emphasize a couple of other points.

P.P.S. Writing about the prospect of tax reform back in April, I warned that “…regardless of what happens with elections, I’m not overly optimistic about making progress.” Today, I still think it’s an uphill battle. But if candidates begin to put forth good plans to restrain spending, the odds will improve.

Republicans candidates have put forth relatively detailed

Video

[brid video=”16793″ player=”1929″ title=”Dan Mitchell Urging GOP Candidates to Produce Spending Restraint Plans”]

CATO economist and PPD contributor Dan Mitchell said he worries about middle Americans in a competitive global economy without spending and tax reform. While speaking on Fox Business, Mitchell, who has analyzed each candidate’s proposal, most recently frontrunner Donald Trump, urged the 2016 candidates to produce both tax and spending restraint plans.

CATO economist and PPD contributor Dan Mitchell

Politics

Marco-Rubio-GOP-debate

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., discusses Russian aggression during the CNN Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2015, in Simi Valley, Calif. (PHOTO: AP)

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., predicted exactly what Russia and, more specifically, President Vladimir Putin intended to do in Syria weeks ago at the CNN debate.

“Well, first of all, I have an understanding of exactly what it is Russia and Putin are doing, and it’s pretty straightforward. He wants to reposition Russia, once again, as a geopolitical force,” Rubio said. “Here’s what you’re gonna see in the next few weeks: the Russians will begin to fly — fly combat missions in that region, not just targeting ISIS, but in order to prop up [Bashar al-] Assad. He will also, then, turn to other countries in the region and say, ‘America is no longer a reliable ally, Egypt. America is no longer a reliable ally, Saudi Arabia. Begin to rely on us.'”

And that is exactly what came to fruition on Wednesday when Russian warplanes began pounding anti-Assad (but not ISIS) targets in Homs, which came as a complete shock to the Obama administration and the Pentagon, unbelievably. Here is the full transcript of what Rubio said, sounding awfully close to what 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney warned about during the second presidential debate with President Obama.

Well, first of all, I have an understanding of exactly what it is Russia and Putin are doing, and it’s pretty straightforward. He wants to reposition Russia, once again, as a geopolitical force.

He himself said that the destruction of the Soviet Union — the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, and now he’s trying to reverse that.

He’s trying to destroy NATO. And this is what this is a part of. He is exploiting a vacuum that this administration has left in the Middle East.

Here’s what you’re gonna see in the next few weeks: the Russians will begin to fly — fly combat missions in that region, not just targeting ISIS, but in order to prop up Assad.

He will also, then, turn to other countries in the region and say, “America is no longer a reliable ally, Egypt. America is no longer a reliable ally, Saudi Arabia. Begin to rely on us.”

What he is doing is he is trying to replace us as the single most important power broker in the Middle East, and this president is allowing it. That is what is happening in the Middle East. That’s what’s happening with Russia.

Worth noting, for labeling Russia America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe,” Gov. Romney was chastised by the Editorial Board at The New York Times.

“His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics,” Andy Rosenthal & Co. wrote. “Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.”

It would appear that he and Sen. Rubio, the latter a presidential hopeful who is oft-criticized for being too young and inexperienced, clearly demonstrated they have a far greater depth and understanding of foreign policy issues and events, than the current president.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio predicted exactly what

World

UN Passed 20 Resolutions Condemning Israel, But Only 1 Condemning Syria

Israeli-PM-Benjamin-Netanyahu-UNGA-10-01-15

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at the United Nations General Assembly on October 1, 2015. (Photo: AP)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the United Nations during his speech at the General Assembly Thursday and railed against the Iran nuclear agreement.

“To borrow a line from Yogi Berra, the late great baseball player and part-time philosopher,” Netanyahu said. “When it comes to the annual bashing of Israel at the U.N., ‘it’s déjà vu all over again.’ Enough. Thirty-one years after I stood here for the first time, I’m still asking. When will the U.N. finally check its anti-Israel fanaticism at the door?”

Netanyahu also promised he would resume peace talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas without preconditions, and called on him to do the same. However, Abbas recently said he would not, a pander to the Hamas-led parliamentary pols he cut a deal with to ensure a governing coalition last year. However, it was another moment during the speech that caught the world’s attention and was widely seen as a powerful and effective tactic.

“70 years afte the murder of six million Jews, Iran’s leaders threaten to destroy my country, to murder my people and yet the respons from this body, from nearly every one of the governments represented here, the response from every one of you here, utter silence,” he said. “Deafening silence.”

Netanyahu said nothing, simply staring intensely and silently at the various world leaders for nearly a minute.

WATCH: Netanyahu Makes UN General Assembly Sit in “Deafening Silence” for 45 Seconds

“Israel is civilization’s frontline in the battle against barbarism. So here’s a novel idea for the United Nations,” Netanyahu proposed. “Instead of continuing the shameful routine of bashing Israel, stand with Israel. Stand with Israel as we check the fanaticism at our door. Stand with Israel as we prevent that fanaticism from reaching your door. Ladies and gentleman, stand with Israel because Israel is not just defending itself, Israel is defending you.”

Netanyahu also criticized the U.N. for passing some 20 resolutions condemning Israel for their actions during the latest conflict with Hamas in Gaza, but only 1 against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who used poison gas to kill thousands of the 200,000-plus who have died since the civil war began. In May, the international body was contemplating putting Israel on the same kid-killer list as the Islamic State (ISIS), but retreated from doing so after a U.S.-led backlash.

But the prime minister’s speech ended with a warning to the would-be Persian empire, declaring that “Israel will not allow Iran to sneak in to the nuclear weapons club.”

“In every generation there were those who rose up to destroy our people, in antiquity we faced destruction, from the ancient empires of Babylon and Rome. In the middle ages, we faced inquisition, and expulsion, and in modern times we faced pogroms and the holocaust. Yet the Jewish people perservered. And now another regime has arisen, swearing to destroy Israel,” Netanyahu added. “That regime would be wise to consider this: I stand here today representing Israel, a country 67 years young, but the nation state of a people nearly 4000 years old. Yet the empires of Babylon and Rome are not represented in this hall of nations. Neither is the thousand year Reich. Those seemingly invincible empires are long gone. But Israel lives. The people of Israel live. Am Yisrael Chai.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the

Polls

Voters to Government: Get Out of Our Lives!

US-Capitol-Building-iStockPhoto

U.S. Capitol Building on Capital Hill. (Photo: iStockPhoto)

A new Gallup survey could spell bad news for both political parties heading into Election 2016, with voters saying they want a less active government role. While that may sound like a net boon for Republicans, who argue for a less intrusive and limited role for government, it cuts both ways and across-the-board.

According to Gallup, 51% of Americans now say the government should not promote any set of values and 43% say it should promote traditional values. The survey marks the second time in 4 years Gallup found voters want the government neutral regarding the promotion of values. To be sure, events appear to have an impact on the year-by-year fluctuations on this question, but there has undoubtedly been an observable trend away from the promotion of traditional values since 2005.

But there isn’t exactly cause for liberal Democrats–or progressives, or whatever they call themselves this decade–to celebrate this development. First, the trend is actually a reflection of the changing views of Republicans, not an increased number of Democrats. Average of 22% of Republicans from 2001-2004 thought government should remain value-neutral, but this has increased to 34% since 2011. That 12-percentage-point increase compares with an average four-point increase among independents (from 46% to 50%) and a seven-point increase among Democrats (54% to 61%) over the same time periods.

Second, The country still remains relatively divided on the issue and, again, the numbers have not been firmly on their side, unlike the question of

“Americans’ growing belief that the government should not favor any set of values represents a shift from the past, and is further evidence of a leftward tilt on matters of morality,” says Jeffrey Jones of Gallup. “At the same time, Americans retain their preference for a more limited government role in solving the nation’s problems, inconsistent with the preferences of the Democratic candidates.”

At the same time Republican and independent Americans’ views have shifted toward favoring a reduced government role in morality, they have stubbornly and encouraging maintained a preference for less government involvement in solving the country’s problems. In the latest Gallup survey, 55% say the government “is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses,” while 40% believe the “government should do more to solve our country’s problems.” Those percentages are similar to the averages of 53% and 39%, respectively, since Gallup began tracking Americans’ views on the role of government in 1993.

Ironically, Americans were more closely divided in its preferences briefly at the beginning of Bill Clinton’s presidency in 1993, shortly before he was forced to say “the era of big government is over” during his State of the Union Address, and favored limited government by a smaller margin from 2006-2008 near the end of George W. Bush’s administration, when his approval ratings were in the dumps.

Again, we see Democrats’ views on this issue are at odds with the general public and, in fact, Republicans and independents are growing increasingly skeptical of the government’s role in problem-solving. While a majority of Republicans have always believed the government is doing too many things, “that percentage has grown from an average 68% in 2001-2004 to 83% since 2011.” Alongside the GOP, independents have also shown an increase in this sentiment, up 9 points from 49% to 58%.

“Meanwhile, Democrats’ preference for a less active federal government has declined from an average 37% to 27%, with the change more pronounced since 2012,” Jones added.

A new Gallup survey could spell bad

Economy

ISM-manufacturing-index

The Institute for Supply Management’s Manufacturing Report On Business Survey. (Photo: REUTERS)

The Institute for Supply Management’s Manufacturing Report On Business Survey released Thursday for September slowed to its lowest level since May 2013. The gauge of national factory activity fell to 50.2 from 51.1 the month before. The reading was shy of the expected 50.6, according to a Reuters poll of economists.

A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the manufacturing sector.

The new orders subindex fell to 50.1 in September, down from the reading of 51.7 in August and the lowest level since Nov. 2012. The prices paid index fell to 38.0 from 39.0 to mark the weakest level since February, missing expectations for 39.3.

The employment index slipped to 50.5 from 51.2 to remain at its lowest level since April, while the imports index slipped to 50.5 from 51.5 to remain at its lowest level since Jan. 2013.

The Institute for Supply Management’s Manufacturing Report On Business Survey is the latest in a string of disappointing manufacturing data released for the month of September.

The Chicago Business Barometer, the Institute for Supply Management-Chicago’s gauge of Midwest manufacturing activity, fell to 48.7 in September from 54.4 the month prior. Economists polled by Reuter expected a decline only to 53 for the month, still above contraction. The Commerce Department reported on Thursday last week that new orders for long-lasting manufactured durable goods fell 2% in August. The durable goods report came after two closely-watched surveys of regional manufacturing activity indicated contraction last month.

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s regional Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey for the mid-Atlantictankedto -6 in September from 8.3 the month prior. The Fed’s reading came in far below economists’ expectations for a drop to positive 6. The Philadelphia Fed’s report marked the second major regional manufacturing survey released this week showing the sector contracting, as the Empire State Manufacturing Survey out last Wednesday showed regional manufacturing activity contracted for a second straight month in September, remaining well below zero at -14.7. Steep declines were reported for both orders and shipments, with the new orders index tanking to -12.9 and the shipments index falling -8.0, respectively.

 

Meanwhile, of the 18 manufacturing industries, 7 are reporting growth in September in the following order: Printing & Related Support Activities; Textile Mills; Furniture & Related Products; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Paper Products; and Nonmetallic Mineral Products. The 11 industries reporting contraction in September — listed in order — are: Primary Metals; Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; Wood Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Machinery; Computer & Electronic Products; Fabricated Metal Products; Plastics & Rubber Products; Transportation Equipment; and Chemical Products.

MANUFACTURING AT A GLANCE
SEPTEMBER 2015
Index Series
Index
Sep		 Series
Index
Aug		 Percentage
Point
Change		 Direction Rate
of
Change		 Trend*
(Months)
PMI® 50.2 51.1 -0.9 Growing Slower 33
New Orders 50.1 51.7 -1.6 Growing Slower 34
Production 51.8 53.6 -1.8 Growing Slower 37
Employment 50.5 51.2 -0.7 Growing Slower 5
Supplier Deliveries 50.2 50.7 -0.5 Slowing Slower 2
Inventories 48.5 48.5 0 Contracting Same 3
Customers’ Inventories 54.5 53.0 +1.5 Too High Faster 2
Prices 38.0 39.0 -1.0 Decreasing Faster 11
Backlog of Orders 41.5 46.5 -5.0 Contracting Faster 4
Exports 46.5 46.5 0 Contracting Same 4
Imports 50.5 51.5 -1.0 Growing Slower 32
OVERALL ECONOMY Growing Slower 76
Manufacturing Sector Growing Slower 33

Manufacturing ISM® Report On Business® data is seasonally adjusted for New Orders, Production, Employment and Supplier Deliveries indexes.

*Number of months moving in current direction.

The Institute for Supply Management's Manufacturing Report

Economy

Weekly-Jobless-Claims-Graphic

Weekly Jobless Claims Graphic. Number of Americans applying for first-time jobless benefits.

The firing rate, or weekly jobless benefits rose modestly last week by 10,000 to a seasonally adjusted 277,000 for the week ended Sept. 26, the Labor Department said on Thursday. It was the 30th straight week that the number of Americans filing new applications for jobless benefits remained below the 300,000 threshold.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims rising to 270,000 last week. The Labor Department said there were no special factors impacting this week’s initial claims, last week was unrevised, and no state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending September 12.

The four-week moving average of claims–which is widely considered to be a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility–shed 1,000 to 270,750.

The report comes ahead of the department’s September jobs report, which is forecast to show the economy added 203,000 jobs in September. Thursday’s claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of aid fell 53,000 to 2.19 million in the week ended Sept. 19.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending September 12 were in Puerto Rico (3.4), the Virgin Islands (2.7), New Jersey (2.5), Alaska (2.4), California (2.2), Nevada (2.2), Pennsylvania (2.2), Connecticut (2.0), Illinois (1.9), and West Virginia (1.9).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending September 19 were in California (+3,725), Kansas (+2,739), Texas (+2,185), New York (+1,878), and Missouri (+960), while the largest decreases were in Wisconsin (-278), North Dakota (-180), Rhode Island (-129), Minnesota (-101), and Kentucky (-78).

Labor said the firing rate, or weekly

Opinion

Pope-Francis-Festival-of-Families

Pope Francis takes the stage at the Festival of Families in Philadelphia on Sept. 26, 2015. (Photo: AP/Alessandra Tarantino)

What if things are not always as they seem?

What if the enormously popular Pope Francis is popular precisely because he is less Catholic than his two immediate predecessors? What if his theory of his stewardship of Catholicism is to broaden the base of the Church by weakening her doctrine so as to attract more people by making it temporally easier to be Catholic?

What if the pope really believes that rather than resist modernism — with its here today and gone tomorrow fancies — the Church should give in to it and even become a part of it so as to appear to be relevant?

What if this is the very opposite of his responsibilities as the Vicar of Christ? What if he rejects his role as the personification of the preservation of Truth and believes he can ignore some truths?

What if the pope thinks, like the big government types in the federal government, that he can change any rule, alter any custom and embrace any heresy in order to advance his novel version of Catholicism? What if he has done so?

What if his radical revision of the process for nullifying Catholic marriages amounts to no more than granting Catholic divorces? What if his making easier reconciliation with the sacraments after participating in an abortion actually diminishes the gravity of killing babies in the womb and encourages more killing? What if he permits Catholics who have remarried outside the Church while still validly married to their original spouse to receive the sacraments?

What if the concept of liberation theology, condemned by Saint Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, mixes Marxism and Catholicism — which are essentially opposites — and produces a weird result that mocks the Mass, rejects traditional teachings, distributes the Blessed Sacrament to non-believers, rejects the need for oracular confession and holds that all world history is but the continued exploitation of the poor by the rich? What if, before he publicly toured America, he privately welcomed at the Vatican the founder of this perversion of Christianity? What if he embraced and celebrated him?

What if one of the reasons his trip to America was so well received is because so many in the media embraced him? What if the media embrace him precisely because his version of Catholicism is not consistent with tradition? What if those in the media who embraced him are not Catholics? What if he seemed more concerned last week with the way we treat the Earth than with the way we treat each other?

What if his passion for the cause of the uber-environmentalists finds no place in Catholic dogma?

What if a bishop friend of mine reviewed all the pope’s public talks last week — at masses and elsewhere — and found that the references to care for the Earth were full-throated, dramatic and clear? What if the same bishop found that the pope’s references to abortion were muted, ambiguous and never even used the word?

What if the capitalism that informed the pope as a young man, the “business” he told Congress he favored, is really the fascism of Argentina in the 1950s and 1960s? What if that fascism — private ownership and government control of economic activities — is akin to the corporatism of today so favored by both American political parties?

What if that corporatism is really a two-way street? What if the corporations that are burdened by the government also benefit from it? What if the same government that grants welfare to the poor and tax breaks to the middle class also grants bailouts to select corporations? What if the pope understands this and embraces it and is attempting to further it by using the moral force of the papacy to support it?

What if, when the pope emphasized the Golden Rule when he addressed Congress, he was not talking about the moral obligation of individuals, but the duty of the government? What if the pope’s muted message that we are our brothers’ keepers was not addressed to us in the Judeo-Christian individualist sense, but to the government in an authoritarian sense?

What if the pope was arguing that the government has a moral obligation to be charitable with taxpayer dollars and dollars borrowed in the taxpayers’ names? What if charity comes from the heart, not from the government? What if it is impossible to be charitable with other people’s money? What if you can get to Heaven by giving of your wealth to the poor? What if there is no personal merit when the government takes your wealth and gives it away in your name?

What if the papacy of John Paul II, which helped liberate millions from the yoke of Communism, and the papacy of Benedict XVI, which produced personal piety and fidelity to traditional teachings amongst many now studying for the priesthood, have been rejected by Pope Francis in favor of novel experiments intended to attract those who reject traditional teachings?

What if this papacy of novelty is as unsuccessful as Vatican II and churches soon empty because the Church changes with the wind, embraces the cult of personality and is disinterested in the Truth?

What if Truth is immutable? What if novelty is the opposite of Truth?

What if this papacy of novelty is

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe