Cardinal George defends decision to defund pro-gay ‘marriage’ immigrant group

From: LifeSiteNews.com

After a group of eight Catholic Democrats published an open letter in the Chicago Tribune Monday criticizing Cardinal Francis George for threatening to withhold charitable funding from an immigrant group that recently came out in favor of same-sex “marriage,” the cardinal fired back in a statement, calling the letter’s signers cynical and “intellectually and morally dishonest.”

The Chicago diocese’s Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) had been contributing between $25,000 and $30,000 each year to several member groups of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR) to aid humanitarian efforts in poverty-stricken neighborhoods.

But since CCHD funding agreements are contingent on recipients not supporting agendas contrary to the Catholic faith, Cardinal George recently notified member groups that CCHD will be unable to provide any more funding unless the groups sever ties with the ICIRR and publicly renounce support for gay nuptials.

In their letter, the Catholic Democrats had accused Cardinal George of using poor immigrants as “pawns in a political battle.”

On Wednesday, Cardinal George responded via a statement posted to the Diocesan website, explaining that ICIRR left the Catholic Church no choice but to withdraw funding after violating the terms of their contract.

“Donors to the CCHD give to this anti-poverty organization with the understanding that their money will be passed on to organizations that respect the teachings of the Catholic faith,” wrote the cardinal. “Organizations that apply for funds do so agreeing to this condition.”

“On May 23,” continued the cardinal, “the ICIRR board broke faith with its member organizations when it publicly supported so called ‘same-sex marriage.’ For its own political advantage, it introduced a matter extraneous to its own purpose and betrayed its own members, who were not consulted.”

Added Cardinal George, “The CCHD had no choice but to respect the unilateral decision of the ICIRR board that effectively cut off funding from groups that remain affiliated with ICIRR.”

The cardinal had harsh words for the Catholic Democrats who signed the open letter, writing, “It is intellectually and morally dishonest to use the witness of the Church’s concern for the poor as an excuse to attack the Church’s teaching on the nature of marriage.”

Added George, “Those who signed the open letter in the Tribune proclaimed their adherence to the Catholic faith even as they cynically called upon others to reject the Church’s bishops. The Church is no one’s private club; she is the Body of Christ, who tells us he is ‘the Way, the Truth, and the Life.’

Because the signers of the letters are Catholic, they know that in a few years, like each of us, they will stand before this same Christ to give an account of their stewardship. Jesus is merciful, but he is not stupid; he knows the difference between right and wrong. Manipulating both immigrants and the Church for political advantage is wrong.”

He reminded the letter signers of Catholic teaching on marriage, quoting Pope Francis, who wrote last month, “…marriage should be a stable union of man and woman…this union is born of their love, as a sign and presence of God’s own love, and of the acknowledgement and acceptance of the goodness of sexual differentiation, whereby spouses can become one flesh and are enabled to give birth to a new life.”

“In other words,” wrote Cardinal George, “when it comes to marriage and family life, men and women are not interchangeable. The whole civilized world knows that.”

The cardinal said the Church is not turning her back on Chicago’s immigrant poor, and will continue to serve them through organizations that do not oppose the Catholic faith on matters of morals and doctrine, including Priests for Justice for Immigrants, Sisters and Brothers of Immigrants, and the Archdiocesan Office for Immigrant Affairs and Immigration Education.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League praised Cardinal George for taking a principled stand.

“Everyone knows that the Catholic Church has a long and proud history of immigrant outreach,” Donohue wrote in a statement. “Everyone knows that the Catholic Church, like virtually every religion in the history of the world, believes marriage should be confined to one man and one woman. It should come as no surprise, then, that Catholics who financially support pro-immigrant organizations expect that their contribution will not fund entities that reject Church teachings on marriage.”

Donohue dismissed the “angst” of the handful of Democratic Catholic politicians who penned the open letter, calling it “contrived.”

“As Cardinal George said … organizations that apply for CCHD funding do so knowing that they are expected to respect Church teachings,” Donohue wrote. “No one forces them to apply; they are free to secure funds elsewhere. But when they violate their agreement, and are called out for doing so, they should not pretend to be victims.”

Added Donohue, “If Cardinal George denied funding to a pro-immigrant organization that was aligned with racist or anti-Semitic causes, he would be heralded as a champion of human rights. But because the issue is gay marriage, he is condemned. The politics are so transparent that it’s making a joke of those promoting it.”

Cook County Commissioners John Fritchey and Larry Suffredin; Chicago aldermen James Cappleman, Patrick O’Connor, Proco “Joe” Moreno, and Danny Solis; City Clerk Susana Mendoza; and retired Cook County Judge Maureen Durkin Roy, all Catholic Democrats, had signed the le

Muslims Demand Germany "Make Islam Equal to Christianity"

From: The Gatestone Institute

A major conference on German-Muslim relations has ended in failure after Muslims attending the event refused to acknowledge the government's concerns about the threats to security posed by radical Islam.

German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich had wanted the eighth annual German Islam Conference, held in Berlin on May 7, to focus on finding ways the government could work together with "moderate" Muslims in Germany to combat Islamism and extremism.

But Muslims attending the gathering were apparently offended by the insinuation that Islam could be radical or violent, and demanded instead that the German government take steps to make "Islam equal to Christianity" in Germany.

The German Islam Conference was launched by former Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble in 2006, and has been billed as the "central forum for dialogue" between German politicians and representatives of the estimated 4.3 million Muslims now living in Germany.

The stated aim of the annual event -- where Muslim organizations and individuals are invited to sit at the table with representatives from federal, state and local government -- is to promote Muslim integration into German society.

This year's event was focused around three main themes: institutional cooperation between Muslims and the German state; gender equality as a common value, and prevention of extremism, radicalization and social polarization.

Muslims attending the conference evidently wanted to focus only on the first theme, which included "promoting the introduction of comprehensive Islamic religious instruction in public schools, including through conferences and publications." Although the government has already made many concessions in this regard, Muslims complained about German "interference" in selecting the teachers who provide Islam training in German schools.

In respect to the second theme -- gender equality -- the German government had hoped to find solutions to the problems of honor violence and forced marriage. But Muslims refused even to acknowledge any connection between Islam and forced marriage. Instead, they managed to turn the gender issue on its head by demanding that German employers promise not to discriminate against Muslim women who want to wear burkas to work.

The third theme -- the prevention of Islamic extremism and radicalization -- undoubtedly caused the most controversy at this year's conference.

Interior Minister Friedrich had been hoping to enlist the support and cooperation of Muslims at the conference to help in the fight against the radicalization of young Muslims in Germany.

Obama Admin Wants to Deport Christian Homeschoolers

From: Human Events

The Romeike family fled their German homeland in 2008 seeking political asylum in the United States – where they hoped to home school their children. Instead, the Obama administration wants the evangelical Christian family deported.

The fate of Uwe and Hannelore Romeikie – along with their six children – now rests with the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – after the Dept. of Homeland Security said they don’t deserve asylum.
Neither the Justice Dept. nor the Dept. of Homeland Security returned calls seeking comment.

“The Obama administration is basically saying there is no right to home school anywhere,” said Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. “It’s an utter repudiation of parental liberty and religious liberty.”

The Justice Dept. is arguing that German law banning home schooling does not violate the family’s human rights.

“They are trying to send a family back to Germany where they would certainly lose custody of their children,” Farris told Fox News. “Our government is siding with Germany.”

Farris said the Germans ban home schools because “they don’t want to have religious and philosophical minorities in their country.”

“That means they don’t want to have significant numbers of people who think differently than what the government thinks,” he said. “It’s an incredibly dangerous assertion that people can’t think in a way that the government doesn’t approve of.”

He said the Justice Dept. is backing that kind of thinking and arguing ‘it is not a human rights violation.”

Farris said he finds great irony that the Obama administration is releasing thousands of illegal aliens – yet wants to send a family seeking political asylum back to Germany.

“Eleven million people are going to be allowed to stay freely – but this one family is going to be shipped back to Germany to be persecuted,” he said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”

The fear of persecution is why an immigration judge granted the family political asylum in 2010.
German authorities demanded the family stop home schooling. They faced thousands of dollars in fines and they initially took away their children in a police van.

German state constitutions require children attend public schools. Parents who don’t comply face punishment ranging from fines to prison time. The nation’s highest appellate court ruled in 2007 that in some cases children could be removed from their parents’ care.

“Families that want to have an alternative education can’t get it in Germany,” Farris said. “Even the private schools have to teach public school curriculum.”

After authorities threatened to remove permanent custody from the Christian couple – they decided to move to the United States.

Uwe, a classically-trained pianist, relocated their brood to a small farm in the shadow of the Smokey Mountains in eastern Tennessee.

“We are very happy here to be able to freely follow our conscience and to home school our children,” he told Fox News. “Where we live in Tennessee is very much like where we lived in Germany.”

Uwe said he was extremely disappointed that their petition to seek asylum was appealed by the Obama administration.

“If we go back to Germany we know that we would be prosecuted and it is very likely the Social Services authorities would take our children from us,” he said.

Uwe said German schools were teaching children to disrespect authority figures and used graphic words to describe sexual relations. He said the state believed children must be “socialized.”

“The German schools teach against our Christian values,” he said. “Our children know that we home school following our convictions and that we are in God’s hands. They understand that we are doing this for their best – and they love the life we are living in America on our small farm.”

Farris said Americans should be outraged over the way the Obama administration has treated the Romeike family – and warned it could have repercussions for families that home school in this nation.

“The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children has been at the pinnacle of human rights,” he said. “But not in this country.”

Napolitano tells Rick Perry to ask Congress for money to house illegal immigrants

From: Rick Perry

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said today that Texas Gov. Rick Perry should ask Congress — and not the Obama administration — for money to cover the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants.

At a breakfast meeting with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Napolitano, a former federal prosecutor and Arizona governor, said she sympathizes with border state governors who are seeking to offset some of the costs of illegal immigration. But she added that Congress must supply the funding to transfer money to the states — and the GOP-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate have declined to make such aid available.

“This is not something Congress has been willing to appropriate for,” she said.

Napolitano said she made a similar reimbursement request of the George W. Bush administration when she, too, was running a border state a few years ago.

“I think he copied our letter when I was governor of Arizona,” he said.

In an Aug. 10 letter to Napolitano, Perry blamed the federal government for failing to secure the border and burdening county jails and state prisons with the costs associated with housing illegal immigrants.

“Therefore, on behalf of all the taxpaying citizens of Texas, I am respectfully submitting a reimbursement request in the amount of $349,283,453 for state and local costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants who are in the United States as a result of the federal government’s failure to properly secure our international borders,” Perry wrote.

Napolitano, who failed to get her requested assistance from the Bush administration, said she has sympathy for border governors who bear the costs of federal immigration policy.

“I get it,” she said.

Demagoguery 101

From: Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online

Obama’s immigration speech was meant to gin up votes, not advance sound policy.

I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues.

– Barack Obama, speech on immigration, El Paso, Texas, May 10


Constructive and civil debate — like the one Obama initiated just four weeks ago on deficit reduction? The speech in which he accused the Republicans of abandoning families of kids with autism and Down syndrome?

The debate in which Obama’s secretary of health and human services said that the Republican plan would make old folks “die sooner”?

In this same spirit of comity and mutual respect, Obama’s most recent invitation to civil discourse — on immigration — came just eleven minutes after he accused opponents of moving the goal posts on border enforcement. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said sarcastically. “Maybe they want alligators in the moat.”

Nice touch. Looks like the Tucson truce — no demonization, no cross-hairs metaphors — is officially over.

After all, the Republicans want to kill off the elderly, throw the disabled in the snow, and watch alligators lunch on illegal immigrants.

Denmark Stick It To the EU

From: American Thinker

One of the crowning achievements of the European Union was the elimination of passport controls when crossing national borders within the Union itself, making the EU analogous to the United States in terms of ease of travel. Yesterday, that edifice started to crumble, when Denmark announced that it would institute passport control . France 24 reported:

Denmark was on a collision course with the European Union on Thursday as it defended a plan to unilaterally enforce stricter border controls, a policy which reflects growing resentment across Europe toward the EU "open-border" policy.

"We see a rise in cross-border crime: drugs, east European gangs, human trafficking, money smuggling... And one of the efficient ways to fight this is border control," Danish Finance Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said Wednesday on Danish television, adding that the enforcement measures would "be put in place as soon as possible."

Danish authorities have planned to invest over €20 million in more customs officers and advanced surveillance equipment to implement a new system of random checks of cars and passports at its borders with Germany and Sweden.

Fixing Britain's Immigration Policy

A leader who gets it

From: British Prime Minister David Cameron

A year ago, we were in the middle of a general election campaign. And there was one message I heard loud and clear on the doorstep: we want things to be different. People said they wanted a government that didn't just do what was good for the headline or good for their party but good for the long term and good for our country. That's what we're engaged in.

Clearly, cutting public spending isn't popular, but it's right to bring sense to our public finances. People said they wanted a government that actually trusted them to use their own common sense. That's the kind of government we want to be - giving neighbourhoods and individuals a whole range of new powers . . . scrapping so much of the bureaucracy that drove us mad.

People said they were sick of seeing those who did the right thing get punished and the wrong thing rewarded. Again, that's what we're acting on. In welfare we're ending the system that took money from hard-working taxpayers and gave it to people who refused to work. These are the differences we are trying to make - listening to people, doing the hard and necessary work of changing our country for the better.

But there was something else we heard on the doorstep - and it was this: "We are concerned about the levels of immigration in our country . . . but we are fed up of hearing politicians talk tough but do nothing." Here, again, we are determined to be different.

Now, immigration is a hugely emotive subject . . . and it's a debate too often in the past shaped by assertions rather than substantive arguments. We've all heard them. The assertion that mass immigration is an unalloyed good and that controlling it is economic madness . . . the view that Britain is a soft touch and immigrants are out to take whatever they can get. I believe the role of politicians is to cut through the extremes of this debate and approach the subject sensibly and reasonably.

The last government, in contrast, actually helped to inflame the debate. On the one hand, there were Labour ministers who closed down discussion, giving the impression that concerns about immigration were somehow racist. On the other, there were ministers hell-bent on burnishing their hard-line credentials by talking tough . . . but doing nothing to bring the numbers down.

This approach had damaging consequences in terms of controlling immigration . . . but also in terms of public debate. It created the space for extremist parties to flourish, as they could tell people that mainstream politicians weren't listening to their concerns or doing anything about them. I remember when immigration wasn't a central political issue in our country - and I want that to be the case again. I want us to starve extremist parties of the oxygen of public anxiety they thrive on and extinguish them once and for all.

Above all, I want to get the policy right: good immigration, not mass immigration. That's why I believe it's time for a new approach - one which opens up debate, not closes it down; where politicians don't just talk, but actually act.

Let's start with being open. The British people are fair-minded - and I want them to feel they can be honest about what they think about this subject. Here's what I think. Our country has benefited immeasurably from immigration. Go into any hospital and you'll find people from Uganda, India and Pakistan who are caring for our sick and vulnerable. Go into schools and universities and you'll find teachers from all over the world, inspiring our young people. Go to almost any high street in the country and you'll find entrepreneurs from overseas who are not just adding to the local economy but playing a part in local life. Charities, financial services, fashion, food, music - all these sectors are what they are because of immigration. So yes, immigrants make a huge contribution to Britain. We recognise that - and we welcome it.

But I'm also clear about something else: for too long, immigration has been too high. Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad. That's the largest influx of people Britain has ever had . . . and it has placed real pressures on communities up and down the country.

Not just pressures on schools, housing and healthcare - though those have been serious . . . but social pressures, too. Because real communities aren't just collections of public service users living in the same space.

Real communities are bound by common experiences . . . forged by friendship and conversation . . . knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time.

That's why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods . . . perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there . . . on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate . . . that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.

This has been the experience for many people in our country - and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.

So, taking all this into account, I believe controlling immigration and bringing it down is of vital importance to the future of our country. That's why during the election campaign, Conservatives made a clear commitment to the British people . . . that we would aim to reduce net migration to the levels we saw in the 1980s and 1990s.

Now we are in government, we are on track to meet that aim. We are controlling legal immigration - having introduced a cap on non-EU economic migrants. We are clamping down on illegal immigration. And we are getting to grips with the asylum system, too. The UK Border Agency is now close to clearing the backlog of almost half a million asylum cases. Our action is working.

But some myths have crept in - about what we're doing and the impact our policies will have. There are those who say that whatever measures we put in place, we can't control immigration significantly. And there are those who accept we can control immigration, but argue that the way we propose to do it will damage our economy and universities. Today I want to take those myths head-on.

Thanksgiving Question Nearly Deports Tortured Christian

From: Real Clear Religion

An immigration judge cannot quiz asylum seekers on religious doctrine to see if they are credible about their faith, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated in a January ruling. The State Department made the rule because persecuted Christians often lack access to religious training and literature.

The problem in the case of Chinese Christian Lei Li, the court said, was not only had he been tested on doctrine, but that his answers weren't wrong.

Li says he became a Christian while visiting Korea in December 1999 and hosted a house church when he returned to China. Authorities raided the church in 2001 and held Li for 19 days, repeatedly beating him. Li was fined about $900, lost his job because of the arrest, and left for the U.S. on a visitor visa. After he violated his visa by working, he applied for asylum.

Li's immigration judge said Li failed to prove that he was a Christian. He couldn't answer basic questions about Christianity, explained the immigration judge.