Sometimes: “Just An Image Says It All™”




This slideshow requires JavaScript.



This slideshow requires JavaScript.





Hobby Lobby In YOUR Bedroom: The Birth Control Statistic Nobody Is Talking About.


By Jueseppi B.



Right now, the Supreme Court is deciding a case that could let right-wing bosses deny birth control to women. If craft retailer Hobby Lobby–a company headed by evangelical activists–wins, the precedent this case could set is frightening. We’re talking about HIV treatment, vaccines, blood transfusions, and more.


Today, a lot of people will be talking about the case, but not a lot of people know why it’s so important. We need to spread the word so Americans everywhere understand that birth control is a vital health care need for millions of women and that 1 in 3 women have a hard time paying for it.


That’s why we put together this timely infographic. Can you take a second to share it with your friends?





Birth Control Rally at Hobby Lobby Case


Published on Mar 25, 2014

Defenders and protesters rally outside the Supreme Court as Justices tackle a case that allows businesses to object to health law’s birth control coverage. (March 25)







Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby


Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, is a United States Supreme Court case on the Affordable Care Act‘s requirement for large businesses to offer insurance for contraception and other reproductive healthcare to their female employees. It was consolidated with Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.




The United States Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) that neutral laws of general applicability are not violations of religious freedom that would have required a strict scrutiny assessment of whether they are the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. The court wrote that “the right of free exercise [of religion] does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability…” The meaning of neutral law of general applicability was elaborated by the court in 1993. The US Congress responded by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), requiring strict scrutiny when a neutral law of general applicability “substantially burden[s] a person’s exercise of religion”. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal RFRA as applied to federal statutes in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal in 2006.



Conestoga Wood Specialties is a furniture company founded by the Mennonite Hahn family. It has about 1,000 employees.


Hobby Lobby is an arts and crafts company owned by the Evangelical Christian Green family with about 13,000 employees.



State of the law

The Affordable Care Act fines $100 per employee per day for companies that refuse to offer coverage for birth control.



Lower court history

Three federal appeals courts ruled against the contraception coverage rule, while two have upheld it.



U.S. Supreme Court consideration


Acceptance and briefs

On November 26, the Supreme Court accepted and consolidated the two cases. Two dozen amicus briefs support the government, and five dozen support the companies. Two of the briefs oppose each other on the constitutionality of the RFRA. Two briefs that do not formally take sides oppose each other on whether the right to religion applies to corporations.



Argument and deliberation

Oral arguments were scheduled for March 25, 2014 for 30 minutes more than the usual one hour.




A ruling is expected in late June, 2014.






Supreme Court Weighs Birth Control Mandate


Published on Mar 25, 2014

The Supreme Court seemed divided Tuesday over whether employers’ religious beliefs can free them from a part of the new health care law that requires that they provide coverage of birth control for employees at no extra charge. (March 25)








From CBS News:


Some of the most politically divisive themes and issues of the 2012 election –Obamacare, the left’s “war on religion,” the right’s “war on women,” and the notion of corporate personhood — all come into play in two cases that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.


Two privately-held, for-profit companies — Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. — are suing the United States government over a provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires large employers to offer their workers comprehensive health coverage, including contraception, or pay a fine. Hobby Lobby’s owners, David and Barbara Green of Oklahoma, say they have strong objections based in their Christian faith to providing health care coverage for certain types of contraception. The Pennsylvania-based Hahn family, the Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties, have the same complaint.


For Christian conservatives, the cases represent the threat of government overreach.


“This case will decide whether a family gives up their religious freedom when they open a family business,” Lori Windham, a senior counsel for the Becket Fund, which is representing Hobby Lobby, told CBS News. “The question here is whether the Green family can be forced to do something that violates their deeply held religious conviction as a consequence of the new health care law.”


Reproductive rights advocates, meanwhile, consider the notion that some businesses could pick and choose which contraception methods to cover “out of touch [and] out of line,” Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America, told reporters.


Contraception is “integral with our economic security and our ability to hold jobs for our lifetime,” Hogue said. “We’ve had enough of this idea our reproductive health is somehow separate from our economic well being… Our bodies are not our bosses’ business.”


The two cases, however, have implications that go well beyond the so-called “wars” on women or religion. If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga prevail, it would prompt “a fundamental shift in the understanding of the First Amendment,” David Gans, the civil rights director for the Constitutional Accountability Center, told CBS News.


That shift in thinking could open the floodgates for unprecedented protections for corporations that some say amount to a license to discriminate. The ramifications could be felt nationwide, in states that are enacting laws to shield businesses from regulations that may violate their “religious beliefs.” Gov. Jan Brewer, R-Ariz., last month vetoed one such bill, which would have allowed Arizona businesses to refuse to serve gays on religious grounds. A number of other states across the country have been considering similar legislation.


The ramifications could theoretically go further than that. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in a brief to the court that siding with Hobby Lobby “would entitle commercial employers with religious objections to opt out of virtually every statute protecting their employees” — such as laws that ban gender discrimination, minimum wage and overtime laws, the collection of Social Security taxes, or mandated health coverage for vaccinations.



Corporate personhood

The basis for Hobby Lobby’s case is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which dictates that an individual’s religious expression shouldn’t be “substantially burdened” by a law unless there is a “compelling government interest.”


The court must first decide whether this law even applies to for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby — in other words, whether corporations have the freedom to exercise religion that’s granted to individuals under the First Amendment. In this sense, the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases are the next iteration of Citizens United, the case 2010 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same freedom of speech guarantees afforded under the First Amendment as individuals.


“I do think the question of corporate personhood is at the heart of the case,” Gans told CBS. “Do corporations have these fundamental rights of human dignity and conscience that they’ve never tried to claim in the past?”


There are, however, noteworthy differences between these cases and Citizens United. Before Citizens United, there was a body of precedent granting corporations freedom of speech in advertising, Gans said.


“The theory was when corporations were selling a product — or as in the case of Citizens United, trying to influence the outcome of elections — that sort of act of expression helped shape public debate, helped shape consumers’ understanding of products,” Gans said.


By contrast, there’s no precedent that the Supreme Court can rely on to find a freedom of religion right for corporations. “The fundamental idea of the religious right is one of conscience, human dignity — human attributions that don’t really apply well to corporations.”


The Supreme Court took up a similar case in the early 1980s, after an Amish farmer argued that paying Social Security taxes on his employees’ wages violated his beliefs. The court unanimously ruled against the farmer in United States v. Lee. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the court, “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”


On the other hand, Windham of the Becket Fund points out since the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court has recognized the religious rights of religious corporations. For instance, the court ruled unanimously in 2006 that the federal government could not confiscate a hallucinogenic tea from a New Mexico religious corporation (which considered the tea a sacrament), even though the tea was barred under federal drug laws.


The key difference between that case and those before the court on Tuesday is that the court is now dealing with for-profit corporations — not nonprofits. In fact, nonprofits with religious affiliations, such as Catholic universities, arealready exempt from the Obamacare contraception rule.


“The government says that nonprofit versus for-profit is the dividing line — that is a really bad dividing line,” Windham said. “That would mean the NFL, which is a nonprofit, has religious rights but Mardel Christian Bookstores does not.” (Mardel, a bookstore chain that the Greens own along with Hobby Lobby, is also challenging the Obamacare mandate.)



Is full contraception coverage a “compelling interest”?

If the court buys that Hobby Lobby has rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Hobby Lobby would then have to prove that it has been “substantially burdened” by a law for which there is no “compelling government interest.”


The court could cite a number of reasons why the Obamacare rule doesn’t amount to a substantial burden. For one thing, the court could point out that in lieu of providing insufficient health care coverage to its employees, Hobby Lobby could simply pay a fine to the government.

That fine would, in fact, cost less than the expense of providing health coverage to Hobby Lobby’s employees. The government would then use that money to support the new Obamacare marketplaces, where Hobby Lobby employees could then find comprehensive coverage.


This rationale would be similar to the logic the Supreme Court put forward when it upheld the Obamacare individual mandate in 2012 — in that case, the court ruled that the rule requiring all Americans to obtain insurance or pay a fine did not amount to a “mandate” but to a tax.


Windham said it’s illogical that “a company that complies with 99 percent of the Affordable Care Act — just because it doesn’t comply with 1 percent — should drop their coverage altogether.”


Hobby Lobby’s owners would feel compelled to compensate its employees for those lost benefits, which would be an additional burden on top of the fine, Windham said.


Even if there is a substantial burden on Hobby Lobby, compelling government interests could overrule that.


Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, said there’s a clear government interest in ensuring that women have full contraception coverage.


“Studies show what common sense tells us,” she said. “Access to birth control increases women’s participation in the workforce and contributes to an increase in women’s wages.”


The Supreme Court said as much in 1992 in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”


Thank you CBS News.



BjkyWYxCUAALEmr (1)












Enhanced by Zemanta

Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson Suspended By A&E Over Anti Gay & Racist Comments


By Jueseppi B.

phil dd1 (1)



Hat Tip/Shout Out to  Dr. Rex …. Blogging for change and her blogIt Is What It Is.


Not only does “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson fail to understand what it’s like to be gay, but he also thinks homosexuality is a sin comparable to bestiality.


In a shocking new interview with GQ’s Drew Magary, Robertson — the 67-year-old patriarch of the Duck Commander kingdom that earned his Louisiana family a fortune and a hit A&E series — opened up about “modern immorality” and the gay community.


“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” Robertson told GQ. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”


“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine,” he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”


To read the full interview, visit


Robertson was once a substance abuser, but in the 1970s he turned his life over to Jesus, according to the Christian publication, The Southeast Outlook. He has since been a devout Christian and strives to be a scholar of the Bible.


Robertson’s anti-gay comments did not sit well with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocates. GLAAD called his comments some of “the vilest and most extreme” uttered against the LGBT community, “littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.”


In a statement obtained by The Huffington Post, GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said:
Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.


Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.


Recently, Robertson and his family were named on Barbara Walters’ “Most Fascinating People of 2013″ list. He snubbed Walters’ interview to go duck hunting instead.




UPDATE at 12:33 pm ET: A representative from A&E sent the following statement to The Huffington Post from Phil Roberston in response to the controversy:


“I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”


NOW thats what I call a down home Christian apology….



A&E said it was troubled by Robertson’s statements.




Then of course the ever dumbass Sarah Palin weighs in with her superior intellect…..



Amy Jehle mentioned:  She never disappoints, which is to say she always disappoints.





‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Phil Robertson Suspended Indefinitely Over Homophobic & Racist Comments


‘Duck Dynasty’ star suspended over anti-gay remarks. Phil Robertson, a star in the A&E hit series, ‘Duck Dynasty,’ has come under fire for comments about homosexuality during a magazine interview.









enoughisenough2 (1)

Native American Heritage Month 2013


By Jueseppi B.




National American Indian Heritage Month


On August 3, 1990 President of the United States George H. W. Bush declared the month of November as National American Indian Heritage Month, thereafter commonly referred to as Native American Heritage Month


The Bill read in part that “the President has authorized and requested to call upon Federal, State and local Governments, groups and organizations and the people of the United States to observe such month with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities”. This was a landmark Bill honoring America’s Tribal people.


This commemorative month aims to provide a platform for native people to share their culture, traditions, music, crafts, dance, and ways and concepts of life. This gives native people the opportunity to express to their community, both city, county and state officials their concerns and solutions for building bridges of understanding and friendship in their local area.


About Native American Heritage Month

Information courtesy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior




What started at the turn of the century as an effort to gain a day of recognition for the significant contributions the first Americans made to the establishment and growth of the U.S., has resulted in a whole month being designated for that purpose.


One of the very proponents of an American Indian Day was Dr. Arthur C. Parker, a Seneca Indian, who was the director of the Museum of Arts and Science in Rochester, N.Y. He persuaded the Boy Scouts of America to set aside a day for the “First Americans” and for three years they adopted such a day. In 1915, the annual Congress of the American Indian Association meeting in Lawrence, Kans., formally approved a plan concerning American Indian Day.


It directed its president, Rev. Sherman Coolidge, an Arapahoe, to call upon the country to observe such a day. Coolidge issued a proclamation on Sept. 28, 1915, which declared the second Saturday of each May as an American Indian Day and contained the first formal appeal for recognition of Indians as citizens.


The year before this proclamation was issued, Red Fox James, a Blackfoot Indian, rode horseback from state to state seeking approval for a day to honor Indians. On December 14, 1915, he presented the endorsements of 24 state governments at the White House. There is no record, however, of such a national day being proclaimed.


The first American Indian Day in a state was declared on the second Saturday in May 1916 by the governor of New York. Several states celebrate the fourth Friday in September. In Illinois, for example, legislators enacted such a day in 1919. Presently, several states have designated Columbus Day as Native American Day, but it continues to be a day we observe without any recognition as a national legal holiday.


In 1990 President George H. W. Bush approved a joint resolution designating November 1990 “National American Indian Heritage Month.” Similar proclamations, under variants on the name (including “Native American Heritage Month” and “National American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month”) have been issued each year since 1994.


The following images of notable Native Americans or subjects of similar interest are a sampling of the exhaustive image resources available from the National Archives, National Endowment for the Humanities and the Library of Congress.


Please note: This list represents only a selection of the digital and physical holdings of the participating agencies.


Image Collections (Library of Congress)



National Archives


National Endowment for the Humanities








blogger4peacelogo cratlogo2 fatherhealthcare hatsbottomlogotruthfacts


The Catholic Church


By Jueseppi B.




A Blogger friend & I were/are engaged in a very deep intense back and forth concerning the catholic church, which I cannot bring myself to capitalize based on my disgust for this “religious” organization.


I posted these articles separately years ago and will repost them as one now.


The Catholic Church Part One:


I will warn you who read this and might be members of the catholic church, I detest the catholic church. I firmly believe that any person the world over who is a member of an organization that advocates pedophilia and the abuse of other humans, also by the fact of association, are themselves advocating the molestation of young people by the catholic church. In simple words, in my UNhumble opinion, if you don’t become a solution to this massive problem of the pedophilia that is being allowed to run rampant through the catholic church…you are a part of the problem.


We crucify people for abusing and molesting children, and we lynch those who know of this abuse and molestation and do nothing, but we turn our heads when it involves the catholic priest & the catholic church. This disgrace has gone on for long enough. Now, we have this same religious organization trying to write government policy on birth control and abortion, stepping out from it’s religious facade into becoming a political power.


The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world’s largest Christian church, with over a billion members. Led by the Pope, it defines its mission as spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ, administering its sacraments and exercising charity. The Roman Catholic Church is among the oldest institutions in the world and has played a prominent role in the history of Western civilization. It teaches that it is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ, that its bishops are the successors of Christ’s apostles and that the Pope is the sole successor to Saint Peter.


Roman Catholic doctrine maintains that the Church is infallible when it definitively teaches a doctrine of faith or morals. Catholic worship is centered on the Eucharist, in which the Church teaches that the sacramental bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. The Church holds the Blessed Virgin Mary in special regard. Catholic beliefs concerning Mary include her Immaculate Conception and bodily Assumption at the end of her earthly life.


No religion, practiced by mere mortals, is ever infallible when it definitively teaches a doctrine of faith or morals. That is the very first mistake of the catholic church.


In the 1990’s and 2000’s, the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy became the subject of media coverage and public debate in the United States, Ireland, Australia and other countries. The Church was criticized for its handling of abuse complaints when it became known that some bishops had shielded accused priests, transferring them to other pastoral assignments where some continued to commit sexual offenses. In response to the scandal, the Church has established formal procedures to prevent abuse, encourage reporting of any abuse that occurs and to handle such reports promptly, although groups representing victims have disputed their effectiveness.


In September 2011, a submission was lodged with the International Criminal Court alleging that the Pope, Cardinal Angelo Sodano dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone Vatican Secretary of State and Cardinal William Levada head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, had committed a crime against humanity by failing to prevent or punish perpetrators of rape and sexual violence in a “systematic and widespread” concealment which included failure to co-operate with relevant law enforcement agencies.


Now I ask you, what company, organization or individual, other than the catholic church, could get away with such sexual abuse against minors? Penn State University, and it’s head coach Mr. Joe Paterno, were vilified in the media and the court of public opinion over one, I said ONE, of it’s employees being accused of sexual molestation and abuse against minors.


Need more proof of just how corrupt the roman catholic church actually is?


“The Catholic Church’s pedophilia investigator, in charge of child protection and interviewing adults who as children had been victims of pedophile priests, was jailed on pedophilia charges in England. 49-year old Christopher Jarvis, a married man with four children of his own, began serving his 12-month sentence after serving the Catholic Church for nine years in a diocese that included 120 Catholic Churches. Jarvis admitted to the charges, which included possession of 4000 images of pre-pubescent boys, including several depicting sadism, child rape, and torture.”


This pedophilia investigator received a 12 month prison sentence. TWELVE MONTHS!


Now we have this same catholic church, this sainted roman catholic church that rapes young underage children, attempting to dictate government policy on birth control, abortion and other governmental issues directly involving politics as well as the daily lives of it’s one billion members. All the while maintaining it’s tax free status. Thats right, you read that correctly…the roman catholic church wants to control political policies of the United States government but retain it’s tax free status as a tax free religious organization….BUT set political policy.


Recently, the catholic leadership came out in opposition to the mandate in our new healthcare law that all health insurance providers offer coverage for prescribed birth control, even for employees in some catholic institutions. But, let’s be clear about what the real issue is here. It is not about government controls, and it is not about infringement of our religious beliefs. It is about a church that has lost touch with reality. The leadership of the catholic church either is ignoring or is unaware of the disconnect between catholic teaching and catholic reality.


Back to the billions of dollars the catholic church’s financial records hide from the United States government….


One of the by-products of the recent U.S. catholic church clergy sexual abuse scandal was a new focus on the church’s financial transparency and accountability. As the scandal unfolded, parishioners learned that in some dioceses, payments related to the scandal had been taking place for years. Some of the payments went to victims in the form of settlements or to pay for counseling; some went to pay for the “rehabilitation” of priests accused of pedophile; and some funds were paid out in lawyers fees. The vast majority of catholics was unaware of these payments, and therefore surprised by the
magnitude of the scandal.


A number of parishioners pointed out that, if the church had been more open in its finances, the expenses associated with clergy sexual abuse, and hence the nature and magnitude of the problem, would have been uncovered much sooner
than it was. This might have caused church leaders to take action sooner and prevent some of the abusive behavior, especially that by repeat offenders.


Now are we as Americans really going to continue to follow a group of religious leaders who hide their unmoral and illegal sexual wrongdoings behind payoff money? Or just move a sexual predator from one church to another church, allowing that priest to prey in a whole new congregation? It appears that is exactly what happens regularly in the roman catholic church.


I know…all you catholic’s are saying right this minute, if you have continued to read this….that all religions have it’s share of pedophiles as religious leaders. That is a sad fact of human life, we have a lot of deviants that need to be weeded out from our society. I am focused ion the catholic church based on their massive size and even more massive influence on humans across this globe. Not to mention their massive financial influence on things political. Which the roman catholic church has NO right being involved.


Facts are facts, there is no such thing as MY facts or YOUR facts. Facts are the same facts for everybody.


The facts: The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest’s victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.


The 2004 John Jay Report was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.


The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:

  • Around 81 percent of these victims were male.
  • 22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.
  • A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.
  • 9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated; 1,028 (18%) were unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests were reported to deny the allegations.
  • More than 10 percent of these allegations were characterized as not substantiated. (This does not mean that the allegation was false; it means only that the diocese or order could not determine whether the alleged abuse actually took place.)
  • For approximately 20 percent of the allegations, the priest was deceased or inactive at the time of the receipt of the allegation and typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.
  • In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.

The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. Of these 4,392, approximately:

  • 56 percent had one reported allegation against them; 27 percent had two or three allegations against them; nearly 14 percent had four to nine allegations against them; 3 percent (149 priests) had 10 or more allegations against them. These 149 priests were responsible for almost 3,000 victims, or 27 percent of the allegations.
  • The allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. They were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. 298 priests and deacons who had been completely exonerated are not included in the study.
  • 50 percent were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse.
  • Almost 70 percent were ordained before 1970.
  • Fewer than 7 percent were reported to have themselves been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent had alcohol or substance abuse problems, 9 percent were reported to have been using drugs or alcohol during the instances of abuse.

Many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse. There was also a large number of allegations of forced acts of oral sex and intercourse. Detailed information on the nature of the abuse was not reported for 26.6% of the reported allegations. 27.3% of the allegations involved the cleric performing oral sex on the victim. 25.1% of the allegations involved penile penetration or attempted penetration.


Although there were reported acts of sexual abuse of minors in every year, the incidence of reported abuse increased by several orders of magnitude in the 1960’s and 1970’s. There was, for example, a more than sixfold increase in the number of reported acts of abuse of males aged 11 to 17 between the 1950’s and the 1970’s. After peaking in the 1970’s, the number of incidents decreased through the 1980’s and 1990’s even more sharply than the incidence rate had increased in the 1960’s and 1970’s.


Trust. Honesty. Power. We give these thing to our religions without question. We can NOT trust the roman catholic church. Their motives are wrong.


The Catholic Church Part II




I recently put together a piece on the catholic church and it’s concern over women’s contraception issues. That piece, based in facts, was very controversial in that many catholics didn’t like the facts and truth shining such a nasty negative light on their religious organization. I was pointing out that instead of being concerned over a woman’s contraception choices the catholic church should maybe be more concerned with the rampant blatant pedophilia inside catholic church leadership.


I recently put together a piece on the catholic church and it’s concern over women’s contraception issues. That piece, based in facts, was very controversial in that many catholics didn’t like the facts and truth shining such a nasty negative light on their religious organization. I was pointing out that instead of being concerned over a woman’s contraception choices the catholic church should maybe be more concerned with the rampant blatant pedophilia inside catholic church leadership.


Taken from the

Former New York Cardinal Edward Egan, who was at the center of the priest abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport when he was bishop here, has drawn criticism from a national victims’ group and a local law firm that represented victims over an interview he recently gave.


In the recent edition of Connecticut Magazine, Egan said that while bishop here, he did nothing wrong regarding abuse allegations against priests in the diocese and in fact never had a case of alleged abuse while he was bishop.


In the interview, Egan also said he believes there is no legal requirement to report abuse cases in Connecticut and expressed regret for the apology he made regarding the priest scandal here.


“First of all, I should have never said that,” Egan told the magazine regarding his 2002 statement of regret. “I did say if we did anything wrong, I’m sorry, but I don’t think we did anything wrong.”


Egan succeeded Bishop Walter Curtis, who had overseen the diocese from 1961 to 1988.


“Egan is obviously unrepentant, self-absorbed and painfully dismissive of the abject suffering of tens of thousands of deeply wounded men, women and children who have been sexually violated by priests, nuns, bishops, brothers, seminarians and other Catholic officials,” said David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. “We can’t help but believe that many other prelates feel exactly as he does, but are shrewd enough to avoid saying so outside of clerical circles.”


Just so there is no misunderstanding about this Cardinal Egan’s statements….In the interview with Connecticut Magazine, Egan said “I don’t think we did anything wrong” in handling abuse cases. He said he was not obligated to report abuse claims and maintained he inherited the cases from his predecessor and did not have any cases on his watch, according to the magazine.


Clergy in Connecticut have been required to report abuse claims to authorities since the early 1970s, according to attorneys who represented numerous abuse victims. ”Egan never did so and his failure to do so constitutes a violation of the law,” said the attorneys, Jason Tremont, Cindy Robinson and Douglas Mahoney.


Egan, who reached the mandatory retirement age of 75 in 2007, was Bridgeport bishop from 1988 to 2000. The Bridgeport diocese has paid out nearly $38 million to settle abuse claims over the years involving allegations by more than 60 people who said they had been molested by priests.


In court documents unsealed in 2009, Egan expressed skepticism over sexual abuse allegations and said he found it “marvelous” that so few priests had been accused over the years.


In the recent interview, Egan was asked about a letter he wrote to parishioners in 2002 saying “if in hindsight we discover that mistakes may have been made as regards prompt removal of priests and assistance to victims, I am deeply sorry.”


“First of all I should never have said that,” Egan responded, according to the magazine. “I did say if we did anything wrong, I’m sorry, but I don’t think we did anything wrong.”


Egan said in the interview that he sent accused priests to treatment.


“And as a result, not one of them did a thing out of line. Those whom I could prove, I got rid of; those whom I couldn’t prove, I didn’t. But I had them under control.”


Egan also said he was not surprised that “the scandal was going to be fun in the news, not fun but the easiest thing to write about.”


As for reporting claims to authorities, he said, “I don’t think even now you’re obligated to report them in Connecticut.”


“I sound very defensive and I don’t want to because I’m very proud of how this thing was handled,” Egan said.


At another point, Egan said, “I believe the sex abuse thing was incredibly good.” Asked if he meant because it resulted in positive changes, he responded, “Good that … the record, I think, is an excellent record.”


Egan’s statements describing the scandal as “fun” for the news or “incredibly good” shows he’s out of touch, the attorneys said.


“For the cardinal to ‘take back’ his apology is just another slap in the face of every victim who has endured the physical and emotional upheaval and betrayal of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a priest,” the attorneys said.


The attorneys said their clients included victims who were abused by priests while Egan was Bridgeport bishop. In 1989 and 1993, abuse victims complained to the diocese but no action was taken, they said.


Egan also welcomed a priest back into the diocese in 1990 who had been accused of biting a young male’s penis decades earlier, according to the attorneys.


Egan transferred priests subject to complaints and allowed priests with complaints against them to continue to practice, the attorneys said.


Yes…the catholic church should be knee deep in attempting to set policy for this administrations health care mandate that covers women’s contraception. And they should also lose their tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Make the catholic church pay taxes on the billions of dollars in it’s bank accounts throughout the United States….if they want to become a political organization…and set government policy.


Documentary proving Catholic Church’s systematic abuse & cover up in USA


The Vatican is being exposed for what it is: The most criminal organization in existence. The crimes that they have managed to commit against humanity for 2000 years via its criminal priests, nuns, and evil religious leaders are now being discovered worldwide, as it is written that any day now, the Catholic Church will go up in flames and be destroyed forever, as it is the mother of all abominations on Earth.




The Protect Your Children Foundation is documenting and exposing all of its crimes worldwide, alerting entire nations of the dangers that the Catholic Church poses to our children in our communities, as they have been implementing crime schemes of rape, torture, starvation, human experiments, abuse, exploitation and more in its religious institutions, while claiming to ‘help children’. The Vatican has utilized its false appearance of mercy, claiming they are representatives of Christ, when in fact, they do this to gain trust and commit crimes. For more info, visit:



Defending The Catholic Church





I am getting sick to death of the lame ass catholic church members who attempt to defend their pedophilia religious organization. Following is an example of the poor excuse of an explanation about the sexual predatory practices of the roman catholic church:


If you wish to read a conversation from a defender of the catholic church, clink this link… Defending The Catholic Church

I won’t waste blog space here.




My suggestion to the roman catholic church and it’s millions of members…clean up your nasty disgusting religion before attempting to set political policy about what insurance coverage you offer the women of the catholic church, or the women who work for catholic organizations.


blogger4peacelogo obamabottomheader


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 254,930 other followers

%d bloggers like this: