A letter to the editor in the Catholic Free Press by Dr. Paul A. Carpentier yesterday claims that Gardner Democrat Brian Knuutila is in favor of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, ESCR, because it is good for economic development. However according to the MA Family Institute Voters Guide, Knuutila answered that he was against funding this type of research. According to Life Guard PAC Knuuttila was one of the most consistently Pro-Life State Representatives when he served and my search of Knuutila’s 2003-2004 Voting record shows no votes on ESCR, and that he opposed the Democratic Social agenda of gay marriage, sex education that corrupts instead of enlightens and abortion on demand, an agenda his opponent Jennifer Flanagan strongly and completely endorses.
I do not know Dr. Carpentier, but can see he has Pro-Life bona fides, yet I have to question the timing of his Letter to the Editor. In Brian Knuutila I see a candidate who is Pro-Life, and Pro-Family and has the votes to prove it, yet in this critical Life issue of ESCR I have on one side the word of the good Doctor, and on the other side I have Knuutila on record with MA Family Institute as against State Funding of ESCR, and I find no public records, statements, endorsements or public votes on ESCR.
And Knuutila's opponent in Tuesday Democratic Primary is wrong on all the Life and Family Issues. Even if Dr. Carpentier is correct Prudential Judgment is still called for in this matter because the other choice is so completely anti-life.
As I write this I do not know the outcome of the Primary Election, but I fear Dr. Carpentier's Letter to the Editor may have helped the adamantly Pro-Choice, Pro-Same-Sex Marriage, AND Pro-ESCR Jennifer Flanagan defeat Brian Knuuttila for the Senate Seat, further solidifying the Anti-Life, and Anti-family forces on Beacon Hill.
Please vote for Brian Knuutila.
Also in the Democratic Primary in Woburn, Please vote for Pro-Marriage candidate John Dwyer over incumbent Patrick Natale.
Please vote for pro-marriage Rep. William Lantigua (D-Lawrence)
Vote marriage supporter incumbent Rep. Mike Rush (D-West Roxbury) over NARAL pro-abortion darling Pamela Julian. Vote Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford)
Otherwise vote for Republicans Jeff Beatty for Senate, Nathan Beck for Congress in W. Massachusetts, Ron Cherninsky for State Rep in Southbridge/Charlton, Kevin Kuros in Webster/Uxbridge, Stephen Comtois in Charlton/Brookfields, please vote for Kurt Hayes, Paul Avela, vote Sandi Martinez for the State Senate in the 3rd Middlesex District, Steven Levy in Hudson/Middlesex and Worcester state Senate, Jeff Perry on the Cape, Lou Evangelidis in Holden, Mike Franco for Gov. Council in E.Longmeadow, Arthur Vigeant in 4th Middlesex Marlborough.
14 comments :
Good for you Jay. It is important to clarify where both candidates stand on the issues. I suspect that Dr. Carpentier wrote his letter because his ego was hurt. In other words, he hs placed the demands of his own reputation and ego before the common good.
He writes, "He (Knuuttila) dismissed me as being ignorant on the subject [ESCR] and excused me from his office." And, "What worries me most is, if a representative will dismiss the views of a pro-life, well-researched, physician member of his own town...how would he treat the views of the rest of his constituents."
While Dr. Carpentier raises some good points, it would appear that he places himself on a higher plane than "the rest" of Knuuttila's constituents and has been slighted because he was "dismissed."
But haven't many of us been dismissed at times? I know I have. Lord knows I have been with some regularity. It is one thing to address being unfairly dismissed as "ignorant." It is quite another to do so in a manner which places the common good last and ego first.
Again, bravo.
When considering whether or not to vote for politicians who cater to the radical homosexual agenda, read this:
http://lasalettejourney.
blogspot.com/2008/09/further-scientific-proof-that.html
I just found out that Knuuttila did vote for cloning and ESCR in 2005.
In 2004 Knuuttila voted 100% with the MA Catholic Conference
Perhaps Dr. Carpentier should have addressed this in the CFP after the elections? After all, Flannagan has a worse record on human life issues.
The Massachusetts Family Institute's comments on the primary election results:
Primary Election results show marriage still an issue
Though Massachusetts Family Institute was not involved in the Primary Election that took place on Sept. 16 other than creating non-partisan voter guides, the results demonstrate that support and opposition of homosexual marriage does have its consequences.
In a heated Democratic primary race in the 30th Middlesex, Woburn city councilor Jim Dwyer handily defeated incumbent legislator Patrick Natale. Natale, when originally running for the seat in 2004, claimed to be a supporter of the marriage amendment, and enjoyed pro-family support for it, but when it came time to cast a vote, he voted against the amendment. During this year's campaign, Natale blasted Dwyer for his support of traditional marriage, proudly touting his support of same-sex marriage. Furthermore, MassEquality did a last minute mailing on Rep. Natale's behalf, but it was not nearly enough. Dwyer beat Natale 60% to 40%.
In the 35th Middlesex District, Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford) was opposed by two candidates in the Democratic Primary Election, and the media has reported that "much of the impetus for the challenge" was his opposition to same-sex marriage. Following his large-margin win, Donato told PolitickerMA.com: "It was a race based upon specific issues that he felt that I was out of touch with in the district and I think that people in my district indicated that I am definitely in touch with them and the values that they have and I am satisfied with an impressive win of over 50 percent."
Meanwhile, two other strong supporters of both traditional marriage and pro-life causes--Rep. Michael Rush (D-West Roxbury) and Rep. William Greene (D-Billerica)--also coasted to impressive victories over Democratic primary challengers. Furthermore, two Democrat legislators who took flack for their support of the Marriage Amendment--Rep. Linda Dean Campbell (D-Methuen) and Rep. William Lantigua (D-Lawrence)--also successfully deflected primary challengers.
While pro-homosexual Rep. Jennifer Flanagan (D-Leominster) won handily in her state Senate primary against pro-family candidate Brian Knuuttila, the House seat she is vacating will be taken over by a pro-family candidate. Dennis Rosa, a supporter of letting the people vote on marriage, won the contested primary yesterday and will now face pro-family independent candidate Claire Freda in the General Election. Whoever wins will be a friend of the pro-family movement.
Homosexual activists have long said that support of same-sex marriage is necessary to be politically viable, but these impressive pro-family victories in yesterday's primaries demonstrate that those claims are far from true. MFI will be working hard in the next few weeks to finalize General Election voter guides that will allow values voters to cast educated ballots in the General Election on Tuesday, November 4.
Dear Friend:
We live in a time of unparalleled prosperity and unprecedented chaos. In Massachusetts, we have a rich cultural heritage extending from our critical role in the American Revolution. However, the family structure is constantly under attack. Recognizing that healthy families are indispensable to the preservation of a strong and free society, MFI is dedicated to strengthening the family and affirming the Judeo-Christian values upon which it is based.
A non-partisan public policy organization, MFI engages in research and education on a wide range of public policy issues to strengthen the well-being, health and safety of families - its individual members and the collective unit.
Please use the many resources on our website to educate yourself about our issues and join us in our work to strengthen the family in the Commonwealth.
You are delusional. You posted the following..."We live in a time of unparalleled prosperity."
We do? 13 million children go to bed hungry every night in this country. People are losing their homes, cannot afford gasoline for their automobiles or home-heating oil, some sacrifice breakfast to pay for gas, many are unemployed, banks are failing etc
McCain was rightly criticized for saying that the "fundamentals" of the economy are "sound." And rightly so. The guy is out of touch as is the entire Republican Party. How many homes does he own? Seven? Daddy Warbucks is living high on the hog while "average" Americans are suffering.
Unparalleled prosperity? The Republican Party is totally out of touch with mainstream America. Your blog is proof of that.
delusional?
Ted Kennedy is your source, when he told Chris Wallace
"We have 36 million Americans that are going to bed hungry every night. 36 million Americans! And 12 million of those are children!"
Kennedy's Hobbesian portrait of an America in which more than 10% of people go to bed hungry every night is flatly false. According to the USDA, 13 million households, containing 36 million people, reported that at least one household member was food insecure in a recent year. “Food insecure” means that such households at some time during the year were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food for all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources."
Yet Kennedy counted every person who might have been "uncertain" of having enough money to get food - at any time during the year - as "going to bed hungry every night."
Your lies are crashing in around you. As people's homes are foreclosed, as they tell us (on local television stations and print media) that they have to sacrifice breakfast to pay for gas, as banks fail and the stock market crashes and we enter another Great Depression, keep telling yourself that the "fundamentals" of the economy are sound - like McCain.
The people know better. Daddy Warbucks doesn't. And neither do you.
The Bush-McCain legacy is a ruined economy. Read the article below.
Schwarzenegger to U.S.:
State may need $7-billion loan
In a letter obtained by The Times, the governor warns that tight credit has dried up funds California routinely relies on and it may have to seek emergency aid within weeks.
By Marc Lifsher and Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 3, 2008
SACRAMENTO -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, alarmed by the ongoing national financial crisis, warned Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson on Thursday that the state might need an emergency loan of as much as $7 billion from the federal government within weeks.
The warning comes as California is close to running out of cash to fund day-to-day government operations and is unable to access routine short-term loans that it typically relies on to remain solvent.
Letter from Schwarzenegger to PaulsonCredit crunch puts California governments in a corner
Schwarzenegger slaps down workers' comp bills
The state of California is the biggest of several governments nationwide that are being locked out of the bond market by the global credit crunch. If the state is unable to access the cash, administration officials say, payments to schools and other government entities could quickly be suspended and state employees could be laid off.
Plans by several state and local governments to borrow in recent days have been upended by the credit freeze. New Mexico was forced to put off a $500-million bond sale, Massachusetts had to pull the plug halfway into a $400-million offering, and Maine is considering canceling road projects that were to be funded with bonds.
California finance experts say they know of no time in recent history when the state has sought an emergency loan of this magnitude from the federal government. The only other such rescue was in 1975, they said, when the federal government lent New York City money to avoid bankruptcy.
"Absent a clear resolution to this financial crisis," Schwarzenegger wrote in a letter Thursday evening e-mailed to Paulson, "California and other states may be unable to obtain the necessary level of financing to maintain government operations and may be forced to turn to the federal treasury for short-term financing."
The letter, obtained by The Times, came on the eve of a vote by the House of Representatives on a $700-billion rescue package, but it was too soon to know how the package would affect the nation's paralyzed credit markets. The Senate approved the so-called rescue bill Wednesday night.
A top Schwarzenegger aide followed up the letter with a call to the Treasury secretary Thursday night. Treasury Department officials could not be reached for comment.
It's customary for California to borrow billions of dollars at the start of the fiscal year to fill its coffers until the usual flood of sales tax receipts comes in after Christmas and income tax receipts arrive in the spring.
"California is so large that our short cash-flow needs exceed the entire budget of some states," Schwarzenegger wrote.
The cash needs to be in the state's bank account by Oct. 28 to be available to fund a scheduled $3-billion payment to more than 1,000 school districts.
Said Matt David, Schwarzenegger's communications director: "California faces the potential of a perfect storm created by the financial crisis' effect on liquidity, lower-than-anticipated revenues currently coming into the state, and our late budget. The governor is taking steps to prepare for this scenario to ensure that the state can make critical payments."
But those payments won't be forthcoming if the state can't do routine borrowing. For now, "the window is shut, and if it stays shut, we are in deep trouble," said an administration official, who asked not to be identified, citing the sensitive talks with Washington.
Quick passage of the rescue bill by the House of Representatives today and a signature by President Bush could inject more money into the international financial system and allow California to borrow at a reasonable interest rate, the official said.
But there are no guarantees that the economic recovery plan before Congress will succeed, said California Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who has been working with Schwarzenegger to keep the state solvent.
Asking the federal government for a loan "is one option on the table," said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Lockyer. The treasurer, he added, is working with outside financial advisors on a possible emergency plan to sell short-term debt notes to the U.S. government. Lockyer believes that such a plan is both feasible and legal, Dresslar said.
"I don't think we have ever gone to the feds," said Fred Silva, senior fiscal policy advisor with California Forward, a state budget think tank.
Silva said the closest California came may have been in the days after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, when at the request of the state, Washington sped up payment of federal funds that the state was owed.
State officials now fear they face a potential cash crisis worse than California confronted in 2003, in the final days of Schwarzenegger's predecessor, Gov. Gray Davis.
At that time, the precipitous decline of state revenue in the middle of a budget year forced officials to pay a syndicate of banks a premium of hundreds of millions of dollars for what amounted to an expensive "payday loan."
Even that option, administration officials say, would not be available during the current credit drought. They say if Congress does not approve a bailout plan -- and maybe even if it does -- there will be no lenders available to provide the state with the money it needs, regardless of the premium the state is willing to pay.
"We need to go as wide as possible to try to find buyers at reasonable rates," said Robert Fayer, an attorney advising the state on its planned $7-billion bond sale.
"Whether it could ultimately be the federal government, I have no idea. It is a fairly radical concept."
marc.lifsher@latimes.com
evan.halper@latimes.com
Yeah boy. Super duper economy.
OprahmaontheSlippery,
I guess the election will tell. But you are still wrong on the 12-13 Million going to bed hungry at night. Perhaps you meant they are hungry for the Truth. In that case the numbers would be much higher
Nope...you're still delusional. And I didn't get any statistics from Ted Kennedy. So you can dispense with the rash judgments regarding my political persuasions, your implication being that I am a Kennedy-style liberal. I obtained my statistics from the Federal government and from FRAC (Food Research and Action Center). At the FRAC website (which is not politically partisan) we read:
One of the most disturbing and extraordinary aspects of life in this very wealthy country is the persistence of hunger. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that in 2006:
35.5 million people lived in households considered to be food insecure.
Of these 35.5 million, 22.9 million are adults (10.4 percent of all adults) and 12.6 million are children (17.2 percent of all children).
The number of people in the worst-off households increased to 11.1 from 10.8 in 2005. This increase in the number of people in the worst-off category is consistent with other studies and the Census Bureau poverty data, which show worsening conditions for the poorest Americans.
Black (21.8 percent) and Hispanic (19.5 percent) households experienced food insecurity at far higher rates than the national average.
The ten states with the highest food insecurity rates in 2006 were Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Arizona.
What do hunger and food insecurity mean in the United States?
Very simply, hunger is defined as the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food. When we talk about hunger in America, we refer to the ability of people to obtain sufficient food for their household. Some people may find themselves skipping meals or cutting back on the quality or quantity of food they purchase at the stores. This recurring and involuntary lack of access to food can lead to malnutrition over time.
In some developing nations where famine is widespread, hunger manifests itself as severe and very visible clinical malnutrition. In the United States hunger manifests itself, generally, in a less severe form. This is in part because established programs – like the federal nutrition programs – help to provide a safety net for many low-income families. While starvation seldom occurs in this country, children and adults do go hungry and chronic mild undernutrition does occur when financial resources are low. The mental and physical changes that accompany inadequate food intakes can have harmful effects on learning, development, productivity, physical and psychological health, and family life.
The government uses two main terms to describe the levels of hunger problems we typically face in the United States. Food security is a term used to describe what our nation should be seeking for all its people – assured access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life, with no need for recourse to emergency food sources or other extraordinary coping behaviors to meet basic food needs. In a nation as affluent as ours this is a readily achievable goal. Food insecurity refers to the lack of access to enough food to fully meet basic needs at all times due to lack of financial resources. There are different levels of food insecurity.
How do we measure hunger and food insecurity?
In the 1980s, due to a combination of cuts in public welfare programs and a recession, many communities across the country experienced an enormous increase in demand for emergency food, often among families with children. Community leaders wanted to document this growing problem so that policymakers would recognize its severity and do something about the hunger they were seeing. Out of this expressed need developed FRAC's Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project (CCHIP), the first nationwide survey measuring the extent of hunger among families with children, the results of which were released in 1991 and 1995.
At the same time that CCHIP was being conducted, FRAC worked with a broad coalition of national organizations to get national nutrition monitoring legislation through Congress – legislation that required the federal government, among other things, to develop a measure of food insufficiency that could be added to the national nutrition monitoring system. Using CCHIP's methodology as a foundation, the USDA and the Census Bureau developed a food security module to be included in the Current Population Survey (CPS).
Since 1995 the U.S. Census Bureau has conducted an annual survey of food security among a nationally representative sample of people living in the U.S. using the food security module in the CPS. The questions asked are about anxiety that the household budget is inadequate to buy enough food; inadequacy in the quantity or quality of food eaten by adults and children in the household; and instances of reduced food intake or consequences of reduced food intake for adults and for children.
The survey (called the "food security module") is widely regarded as a reliable indicator of household well-being and will serve as the basis for evaluating our nation's progress in reducing food insecurity -- one of the Surgeon General's health objectives for the nation for the year 2010. The goal is to increase food security from 88 percent of all US households (1995) to 94 percent.
In 2006, the USDA Economic Research Service asked the National Academies of Science to carry out an independent review of the survey methodology. They concluded that the survey and the methodology to measure food insecurity were appropriate and that it was important to continue monitoring food security. However, they felt that the descriptions of categories should be revised to better convey that it is a measure of household food insecurity.
As a result of the scientific panel’s review and subsequent recommendations, USDA introduced new labels for the survey results. These are intended to measure the full range of food insecurity as experienced by households. While the word hunger has been removed from the description of the results of the survey, it should not be interpreted that there has been a major shift in the incidence of hunger. There are countless people in this country facing hunger daily.
The new terms used in the survey to describe food security are:
High Food Security: These are households that did not answer ‘yes’ to any of the food insecurity questions.
Marginal Food Security: This term captures families that answered ‘yes’ to one or two of the food security questions, meaning they have has some difficulties with securing enough food. Previously, they would have been categorized as “Food Secure.”
These two groups together will describe food insecurity. The new terms used in the survey are:
Low Food Security: This term replaces “Food Insecurity without Hunger.” Generally, people that fall into this category have had to make changes in the quality or the quantity of their food in order to deal with a limited budget.
Very Low Food Security: This term replaces “Food Insecurity with Hunger.” People that fall into this category have struggled with having enough food for the household, including cutting back or skipping meals on a frequent basis for both adults and children.
According to the results of the Census Bureau survey, those at greatest risk of being hungry or on the edge of hunger (i.e., food insecure) live in households that are: headed by a single woman; Hispanic or Black; or with incomes below the poverty line. Overall, households with children experience food insecurity at almost double the rate for households without children. Geographically, food insecurity is more common in central city households. The survey data also show that households are more likely to be hungry or food insecure if they live in states in the Midwest and South.
What are the implications of high hunger rates?
The ability to obtain enough food for an active, healthy life is the most basic of human needs. Food insecure households cannot achieve this fundamental element of well-being. They are the ones in our country most likely to be hungry, undernourished, and in poor health, and the ones most in need of assistance. A high number of food insecure households in a nation with our economic plenty means that the fruits of our economy, and the benefits of public and private programs for needy people, are not yet reaching millions of low-income people who are at great risk.
Updated 1/17/07
Okay Senator McPain? Go tell it to Governor Sarah Palindrone.
OprahmaontheSlippery,
You said "13 million children go to bed hungry every night in this country"
I countered that your statistic was one of food insecurity, not of hunger.
You go on to prove my point by quoting from the same source that I did, the one that said "Food insecurity refers to the lack of access to enough food to fully meet basic needs at all times due to lack of financial resources"
This document also that says "There are countless people in this country facing hunger daily."
Thank you.
Food insecurity translates into children going hungry. You didn't care. Neither did your candidate. And now you have lost. The people didn't believe your lies......hahahahaha
LOL!
Post a Comment